Have to admit it...

[HeavyD1176]

maybe try some studio monitors...
I havent had much luck with headphones other than for tracking and referencing mixes

[doulos30]

studio monitors would eliminate 3 of those steps

[psycho_monkey]

Originally Posted by SmoothVibe

I'm now obsessed with in what order I should use my headphones.

I record, produce, mix, master using 4 sets of headphones. At some point I realised that the order of use has an impact on my final masters.

This afternoon I'm going to try a new combination, there are a quite a lot of combinations to try out...! This is the combination I'll try:

1. Record and produce rough mix using high quality pro headphones (#1)
2. Mix using pro headphones (#2)
3. Post-mix using consumer headphones (#3)
4. Master using prosumer headphones (#4)

If you wonder why I choose this particular order it is because the reverse order, while it should work rather well, it really doesn't work for me...!

3 - what's a "post-mix"? haven't ever come across this term before....

You think about these things far too much by the way, at least judging from your posts.

Assuming speakers aren't an option how about:

1 - record, mix, "post-mix" and master using the flattest, truest headphones you have. Whilst actually performing, use the headphones that inspire you the most to give a good performance.
2 - whilst mixing/mastering, regularly check on as many different headphones/speakers as you can for a reference.
3 - stop worrying about crazy workflows and set routines - no-one else does!
4 - seriously look into getting a pair of speakers, even just for the production side. It must drive you mad spending long periods of time with headphones on - it does me!

[SmoothVibe]

Originally Posted by HeavyD1176

maybe try some studio monitors...
I havent had much luck with headphones other than for tracking and referencing mixes

Unfortunately I am currently a bit limited when it comes to loud sound, I have also had some difficulties using monitors in the past, used Mackie HR 824s, didn't work at all, to some degree as a result of the type of room I had my studio in then. I figured it would be best to go with headphones and so far I think it has done some good things to my music productions: My luck changed yesterday! Seems like I found the correct order of headphone use!

What I learned was that using many headphones is a good thing, however their pattern of use is important as well. Right now I produced and mixed using my best headphones, post-mixed using my second best headphones and did the master using my consumer and prosumer headphones, then I iteratively joined the two other sets for fine tuning and then did iterations until I was satisfied with the sound in all four headphones. It worked much better, my pattern of headphone use previously didn't make sense, but now it does.

Coming up I'm going to test a different approach: Use my most pro (1) and most consumer (least forgiving) headphone (2) sets on every process step and fine tune using my other two sets. The strategy here is to allow only the right frequencies into the recording and preserve it throughout the process. While I succeeded yesterday in a very nice way, I did have to do one thing that sort of interrupted my workflow: had to lower the reverb on my drum room mics during the post-mix process, I didn't notice it was much too loud in the mix. Had I then used my consumer (least forgiving) headphone set I would have instantly noticed that and adjusted it...

[GJ999x]

Hate to sound cynical but maybe you just had the good fortune for the mix to come out rite yesterday? (good work)

Id bet it wasnt down to an exact and seperated order of headphones.

I almost always end up moving back and forth between monitors and headphone sets with a focus on the flat monitors i know best, and with lots of referencing.

Sent from my GT-I9100P using Gearslutz App

[psycho_monkey]

Originally Posted by SmoothVibe

Unfortunately I am currently a bit limited when it comes to loud sound, I have also had some difficulties using monitors in the past, used Mackie HR 824s, didn't work at all, to some degree as a result of the type of room I had my studio in then. I figured it would be best to go with headphones and so far I think it has done some good things to my music productions: My luck changed yesterday! Seems like I found the correct order of headphone use!

What I learned was that using many headphones is a good thing, however their pattern of use is important as well. Right now I produced and mixed using my best headphones, post-mixed using my second best headphones and did the master using my consumer and prosumer headphones, then I iteratively joined the two other sets for fine tuning and then did iterations until I was satisfied with the sound in all four headphones. It worked much better, my pattern of headphone use previously didn't make sense, but now it does.

Coming up I'm going to test a different approach: Use my most pro (1) and most consumer (least forgiving) headphone (2) sets on every process step and fine tune using my other two sets. The strategy here is to allow only the right frequencies into the recording and preserve it throughout the process. While I succeeded yesterday in a very nice way, I did have to do one thing that sort of interrupted my workflow: had to lower the reverb on my drum room mics during the post-mix process, I didn't notice it was much too loud in the mix. Had I then used my consumer (least forgiving) headphone set I would have instantly noticed that and adjusted it...

Again - what is this "post mix" process - do you mean mix revisions? That's still part of the mix...it's not a separate process!

At any rate, it looks like you're doing what everyone else does, and what I already suggested you do - mix on the truest monitoring you have, and reference on everything else.

You're still analysing things too much though - there's no need to make such conscious decisions about "and now I use my prosumer headphones..and now my pro headphones...." just make things translate!

FWIW the "least forgiving" headphones are hopefully the pro ones - they're the ones that tell you what's really going on (as much as headphones can). The consumer ones will be more of a "grot box" reference - ie showing you how many people will hear it, and hopefully it'll still be acceptable.

[SmoothVibe]

Originally Posted by psycho_monkey

3 - what's a "post-mix"? haven't ever come across this term before....

Ahh... I understand why, it's kind of my own thing. I no longer see the whole process as a production process. I re-defined that concept in a way that in my view makes more sense. One can say that I view the overall process as two main phases: 1) Production 2) Finalization.

Recording Workflow

1. Production - Set recording quality
1.1 Tracking
- Create and store frequencies
1.2 Producing
- Add/Update/Delete frequencies
1.3 Mixing
- Balance the mix
- Apply fxs (all effects allowed)
- Apply volume & fx automation

2. Finalization - Expand recording quality
2.1 Post-mixing
- Apply panning
- Apply ambience fxs (delays, reverbs, windeners etc.)
- Fine adjust balance (eq, volume)
2.2 Mastering
- Finish the recording

For production (tracking, producing, mixing) I use Steinberg Cubase, that software doesn't interrupt my production workflow. It enables me to work creatively with the song, I can easily work with MIDI sound sources and MIDI editing. I can easily route all my tracks however I want, I use a lot of group, fx and folder tracks, e.g., I route my audio takes to groups and let the project export feature do the audio track blending. Very convenient! During the production process I basically aim at making it work even without the finalization, it's during the production phase that the recording quality is set.

During the finalization phase I basically expand that recording quality in all directions. I use Pro Tools for the finalization steps (post-mixing, mastering), I find it good for those kinds of tasks.

My recording philosophy is that the order of significance to the final recording quality equals the position it has in the recording workflow and signal chain. The earlier in the process the more significant it is. Therefore I've put a lof of emphasis on early components such as the AD converter, I'm using a Digidesign Orpheus for that task, which enables me to capture the frequencies in a nice way and enables me to hear what I record. It also has low latency and high reliability, which supports my production workflow in a great way. I used to have an RME Fireface 800 converter and had to go through a lot of software freezes in both Cubase and Pro Tools. It also shadowed the sound source frequencies in a really bad way, most of the mid frequencies... All of that has come to an end.

If you have more questions about my specific kind of recording approach, please let me know...

[psycho_monkey]

glad that works for you!

Like I said, to my eyes you're overthinking the whole process and making life hard for yourself.

How can you start looking at creating spaces, ambiences and doing rides and automation if you've not even panned your sources?

"Create and store frequencies" - whatever happened to just recording some good music?!

I can understand wanting to separate the writing, production and mixing processes - I try to do that myself.

Writing - try to get the song down, get a good harmonic and melodic structure to base the track around. "get it in there" however roughly - I often just do a 1-mic guitar/voice demo.

Production - arrange, choose sounds, all that sort of thing. Programming and any live instruments. Get the final track sounding good but rough. Bounce all midi to audio, strip off any "included FX" unless a significant part of the sound of an instrument.

Mixing - and here's where your workflow overcomplicates I think. Why not try something along the lines of:

- getting a GOOD rough balance - including all panning and grouping.
- inline processing - EQ, compression, buss compression, whatever else.
- adding space - reverbs, delays, etc.
- automation - fine tuning rides and so on.

?? no real need to be hardcore about any of this, most people frequently jump around between instruments and EQing, compression and so on.

Automation should generally be one of the last things you apply, esp fine-tuned automation - unless the mix is 90% there, how can you tell what needs automating?

You may of course be turning out the most stunning mixes using your methods, in which case don't change anything. But if you're struggling, you should be aware that your way of thinking about the process is probably the thing that's hampering you - I've never met a successful mixer/producer that intellectualises things as much as this, and usually people who take this sort of approach miss the wood for the trees.

[DR Music]

Too funny!!

[SmoothVibe]

Originally Posted by psycho_monkey

glad that works for you!

Like I said, to my eyes you're overthinking the whole process and making life hard for yourself.

How can you start looking at creating spaces, ambiences and doing rides and automation if you've not even panned your sources?

"Create and store frequencies" - whatever happened to just recording some good music?!

I can understand wanting to separate the writing, production and mixing processes - I try to do that myself.

Writing - try to get the song down, get a good harmonic and melodic structure to base the track around. "get it in there" however roughly - I often just do a 1-mic guitar/voice demo.

Production - arrange, choose sounds, all that sort of thing. Programming and any live instruments. Get the final track sounding good but rough. Bounce all midi to audio, strip off any "included FX" unless a significant part of the sound of an instrument.

Mixing - and here's where your workflow overcomplicates I think. Why not try something along the lines of:

- getting a GOOD rough balance - including all panning and grouping.
- inline processing - EQ, compression, buss compression, whatever else.
- adding space - reverbs, delays, etc.
- automation - fine tuning rides and so on.

?? no real need to be hardcore about any of this, most people frequently jump around between instruments and EQing, compression and so on.

Automation should generally be one of the last things you apply, esp fine-tuned automation - unless the mix is 90% there, how can you tell what needs automating?

You may of course be turning out the most stunning mixes using your methods, in which case don't change anything. But if you're struggling, you should be aware that your way of thinking about the process is probably the thing that's hampering you - I've never met a successful mixer/producer that intellectualises things as much as this, and usually people who take this sort of approach miss the wood for the trees.

Thanks for sharing your perspective, this point of view which I totally understand what it's all about I have also used to not allow my workflow to become limiting. While my "Recording Workflow" might seem extremely strict and to some degree limiting as well, in practice I'm using it as a rough map of how I'm running the recording process. At some point I figured out I was doing much too much in a single production session, so much in fact that it was eating up my productions. So I realised it really didn't make sense to do non-production tasks in the middle of a production session, I had to exclude those kinds of tasks from the core production work, to simply make it all easier, more convenient and more fun. An example of this was things like panning and stereo fx stuff, which was repeatedly almost always taking more focus than automation (fader, fx knob riding). It simply just interrupted my production workflow. Automation is so much more critical and has to remain in focus. Also, since I'm breaking up the process in two phases and utilize dedicated software for each, in general I hit limitations less frequently. If a feature is available in only one of the software I can still take advantage of it, and with less fx types to use I can simplify the signal chain I work with and avoid having to engage more group tracks to lengthen the insert/send slots.

Regarding maintaining focus on music and not be too technically oriented, I have learned that the hard way. I now view crafting the recording as 50% music, 50% gear and technique. In the past I was much too music oriented, once I really understood the impact of gear and technique I was finally grasping that I have to focus enough on both. It's amazing what some of my extremely detailed technical production and mixing techniques have done to my recordings.

[SmoothVibe]

Originally Posted by psycho_monkey

Mixing - and here's where your workflow overcomplicates I think. Why not try something along the lines of:

- getting a GOOD rough balance - including all panning and grouping.
- inline processing - EQ, compression, buss compression, whatever else.
- adding space - reverbs, delays, etc.
- automation - fine tuning rides and so on.

Panning and fxs for ambience extension I exclude to post-mixing, but else I do all of these things during mixing, including reverb, which I also view as coloring and setting the context. Setting the ambience is required, but regarding extending it and fitting it to the format I do that during post-mixing. During production I utilize what is available to color. The panning in itself doesn't color, so I exclude that to post-mixing. However, mixing is really the step when I want to use most of my fxs. One of my recent techniques, which I think works really good, is to use alternative fxs to EQs. I'm not trying to force that, I still use EQs a lot, but I tend to first try alternative approaches and when that doesn't work I go with volume fader or EQ, sometimes I go with a little of all three. Panning in order to resolve frequency masking, that becomes too much during production (except that it is automatically handled during the balancing process), that I don't care about during production. So in practice, if I like the low end in my electric piano and the low end in my acoustic piano, I basically let them clash. Getting the right sound out of them is my priority during production. And it doesn't really matter, because once you start working with the stereo field in the post-mixing process you can really make it fit anyway...

My philosophy is to allow myself to do anything during production that is not directly associated to the format(s) it's going to end up on. I don't really like the idea of letting thoeretical stuff dictate what I do during production. For instance I don't like the idea of recording only what "fits" in the frequency spectrum, I like to record whatever I want whether it fits or not. Making it fit is a matter of doing the right things with it. I used to have this simplistic approach of almost having no elements on the mix. Those mixes became clean, loud and boring, just like some of the pop mixes you hear on radio. Once I started layering all my sound sources even to the point it was becoming blurry, I could still make those mixes work, but be much less boring in the end. So no element count limitation anymore for me. These days I record whatever I want, in layers. And I'm not afraid of hitting the track duplicate butting in Pro Tools during post-mixing...

[psycho_monkey]

I think you're better off left to your own devices...good luck!

[Hardtoe]

Can we hear the song of yours that worked out well recently?


(with the correct headphone order you discovered)

[SmoothVibe]

Originally Posted by psycho_monkey

I think you're better off left to your own devices...good luck!

Thanks a lot! I agree that is the right thing. The only real issue I have right now with my approach is that the M/S recorded tracks are a bit tricky, as these would allow me to mix from a stereo field perspective during the production process, which I try to avoid because it impacts the production workflow in a negative way. I think I will do like the way I do with drum room mics, simply just view the side track as a separate track I can do any production tasks on, except of course panning.

I haven't yet tried the M/S feature in my Orpheus interface, but I'm assuming I can use its MID channel as a mono channel in Cubase and its SIDE channel as a stereo channel in Cubase and group both of these to a single fader, which becomes handy for the balancing work during mixing, when I don't always want to link the channels or adjust all channels in the same way repeatedly.

[SmoothVibe]

BTW. A few words on converter upgrade. If you are not satisfied with the sound of your current mixes and/or if your system seems unreliable, have a look at your converter. Everybody here on GS had the view that converters are only impacting the sound very marginally and that there's nothing wrong with the FF 800. But I knew that it had to be the converter in my case. So I upgraded it, however I should have done so years ago, better late than never. So what happens to a mix when you upgrade from using an RME Fireface 800 converter to a Prismsound Orpheus? Much more than you would think. You get a completely new sound. I was really surprised about that! It's like taking a blanket off your speakers, all of a sudden your sound sources sound the way they do when you run them unconverted. A whole range of new frequencies appear from nowhere compared to what you've been recording earlier. All of a sudden I could notice how much mids I had in some of my sound sources I recorded and how damaged my mixes had become from boosting mids that were really already there and from not lowering mids that should have been lowered. No wonder it becomes difficult to mix when there is a filter changing the frequencies between the sound source and the mix and the mix and the speakers. Also, you notice the frequency of emotional response goes up. Recording with the RME Fireface 800 was like an end-to-end dead experience, to tell you the truth I rarely felt anything, I knew it should not be like that because I remembered when I was recording with my old one track tape recorder I often got an emotional response from my recordings. I think the RME Fireface 800 is really damaging some fundamental frequencies and their harmonics in such a way that the emotional expression is lost, something about the modulation and transient content across the frequency spectrum gets altered. Also, you get much better reliability and usability, the latency is really low and the system doesn't freeze like it used to do with the FF 800. I can really recommend taking the same path, it is really nice...!

[doulos30]

nothing wrong with the FF 800. But I knew that it had to be the converter in my case. So I upgraded it, however I should have done so years ago, better late than never.

then you tricked your brain into hearing what you wanted to hear and were listening for details since you just forked over some cash. When in reality that FF800 converter is completly flat from 20hz to 20khz by a fraction of a db that you cant even hear a diffrence.

your just the same as every other audiophile with there snake oil tweaks and fixes

ff800 specs

Dynamic range AD: 109 dB RMS unweighted, 112 dBA
THD+N AD: < -104 dB (< 0.00063 %)
Crosstalk AD: > 110 dB
Dynamic range DA: 116 dB RMS unweighted, 119 dBA (unmuted)
THD+N DA: < -100 dB (< 0.001 %)
Crosstalk DA: > 110 dB

prism

THD+N -111dB (0.00028%, -0.1dBFS)
Dynamic Range 116dB (-60dBFS)
Gain Accuracy ±0.05dB
Crosstalk -120

THD+N -106dB (0.00050%, -0.1dBFS)
Dynamic range 115dB (-60dBFS)
Gain accuracy ±0.05dB
Crosstalk -120dB

[SmoothVibe]

Originally Posted by doulos30

then you tricked your brain into hearing what you wanted to hear and were listening for details since you just forked over some cash. When in reality that FF800 converter is completly flat from 20hz to 20khz by a fraction of a db that you cant even heard a diffrence.

your just the same as every other audiophile with there snake oil tweaks and fixes

e, I can assure you that's really not the case in real life. The RME Fireface 800 is like a muffler it turns all instruments into sounding like cheap synth bass guitars. There must also be some kind of phase issue in it or something because positioning tracks to really separate themselves in the mix is much more difficult! I'm not saying the RME Fireface 800 cannot be used for certain tasks, I'm still investigating can I find any use of it, since I still own it. So far my reaction is that it handles lows fairly well (almost if not as good as the Orpheus) compared to the mids and highs, so maybe it could be used on some low frequency instruments that don't consume so much mix signal. Getting the mids and highs the way you want with an RME Fireface 800 I find to be very difficult if not impossible. And making it sound warm and sweet, that I find to be impossible. Also, the pre-amps in the FF 800 are not at all on the same level as on the Orpheus, my guitars are less noisy.

An RME Fireface 800 vs. Digidesign Orpheus overview:

Lows: FF800 (1) = Orpheus (1)
Mids: FF800 (0) << Orpheus (2)
Highs: FF800 (0) < Orpheus (1)
Pre-Amps: FF800 (0) < Orpheus (1)
Emotion: FF800 (0) < Orpheus (1)
Stereo: FF800 (0) << Orpheus (2)
Routing: FF800 (2) >> Orpheus (0)
Dithering/Noise Shaping: FF800 (0) << Orpheus (2)
----------------------------
Total Score:
FF800 -> 3/13
Orpheus -> 10/13

After all I think the price difference between the two units is fairly fair, you really get more at a higher price...

[doulos30]

I'm not arguing the preamp sections I'm sure your getting better quality on the analog front end but a general loop back test will show you what the differences are on output

for example here is my profire 2626



and my specs

[SmoothVibe]

Originally Posted by doulos30

I'm not arguing the preamp sections I'm sure your getting better quality on the analog front end but a general loop back test will show you what the differences are on output

for example here is my profire 2626



and my specs

Interesting, what software did you use for this? I would like to do the same measurements on my setup... Thanks!

[psycho_monkey]

Originally Posted by SmoothVibe

e, I can assure you that's really not the case in real life. The RME Fireface 800 is like a muffler it turns all instruments into sounding like cheap synth bass guitars. There must also be some kind of phase issue in it or something because positioning tracks to really separate themselves in the mix is much more difficult! I'm not saying the RME Fireface 800 cannot be used for certain tasks, I'm still investigating can I find any use of it, since I still own it. So far my reaction is that it handles lows fairly well (almost if not as good as the Orpheus) compared to the mids and highs, so maybe it could be used on some low frequency instruments that don't consume so much mix signal. Getting the mids and highs the way you want with an RME Fireface 800 I find to be very difficult if not impossible. And making it sound warm and sweet, that I find to be impossible. Also, the pre-amps in the FF 800 are not at all on the same level as on the Orpheus, my guitars are less noisy.

An RME Fireface 800 vs. Digidesign Orpheus overview:

Lows: FF800 (1) = Orpheus (1)
Mids: FF800 (0) << Orpheus (2)
Highs: FF800 (0) < Orpheus (1)
Pre-Amps: FF800 (0) < Orpheus (1)
Emotion: FF800 (0) < Orpheus (1)
Stereo: FF800 (0) << Orpheus (2)
Routing: FF800 (2) >> Orpheus (0)
Dithering/Noise Shaping: FF800 (0) << Orpheus (2)
----------------------------
Total Score:
FF800 -> 3/13
Orpheus -> 10/13

After all I think the price difference between the two units is fairly fair, you really get more at a higher price...

Either yours was broken, or you're suffering from a serious case of confirmation bias!

Looking at your "review" - Emotion?! how on earth can you rate an electronic device on "emotion"? and "dithering"? how can you judge the dithering between units?

Preamps - understandable, you get what you pay for. And I'm not arguing that overall the orpheus should make an improvement. But it won't be a "night and day" difference. I've used Prism converters (not the Orpheus, the ADAs used on Pro Tools rigs) in place of 192s. Not A/Bing directly, I would struggle to tell the difference just from listening to them straight. I'm sure an A/B record and playback test would be obvious, but not veil-liftingly obvious.

The more I read from you, the more I think your brain is wired in a very different way to most of us!

[SmoothVibe]

Originally Posted by psycho_monkey

Either yours was broken, or you're suffering from a serious case of confirmation bias!

Looking at your "review" - Emotion?! how on earth can you rate an electronic device on "emotion"? and "dithering"? how can you judge the dithering between units?

Preamps - understandable, you get what you pay for. And I'm not arguing that overall the orpheus should make an improvement. But it won't be a "night and day" difference. I've used Prism converters (not the Orpheus, the ADAs used on Pro Tools rigs) in place of 192s. Not A/Bing directly, I would struggle to tell the difference just from listening to them straight. I'm sure an A/B record and playback test would be obvious, but not veil-liftingly obvious.

The more I read from you, the more I think your brain is wired in a very different way to most of us!

I'm just explaining my observations regarding the difference between the two units. I can imagine that converters in the same price range are pretty close with marginal differences...

My signal chain is extremely simple, when a new component enters it, I'm likely going to notice it. When I setup the Orpheus it was more like - wow, this is a completely different sound! FF800 has a lower overall frequency than Orpheus, it's really that simple. With that much more mids and highs it becomes a night and day difference when it comes to sound clearity, it's like a blanket being taken off the speakers. Possibly not on paper, but surely in realy life. They have completely separate sound characteristics. One version wants to reveil what's truly in the signal by being bright enough so that you can do something about it, the other one hides it so that you are unaware of it. Why FF800 also seems to have a more distorted stereo signal I cannot explain, but it might be that the D/A section converts the signal in a cleaner way so that the panning process becomes more precise. Thanks to the Orpheus I've been able to spot a few cables and an FX where I have much too much noise (need to shorten the length and get ones with better material/shielding and be careful about using that EQ), I'm going to switch those and get an improved SN.

[SmoothVibe]

Originally Posted by psycho_monkey

Looking at your "review" - Emotion?! how on earth can you rate an electronic device on "emotion"? and "dithering"? how can you judge the dithering between units?

It's simple: Orpheus has 4 different dithering modes (SNS1-4), FF800 has none. That creates 2-0 to Orpheus. Orpheus triggers emotional response every now and then - FF800 triggers emotional response very rarely. As it's difficult to know the precise difference it converts to 1-0 to Orpheus. I thought about adding price as a factor as well, which would have yielded FF800 2 - Orpheus 0, but it has no music/sound impact so it needs to be excluded in this case.

Having said this, whenever I find a unit that can do something better than some other unit, I try to find a different use of the other unit and often time I do, often time both can be added in such a way that the overall result would be worse if one of the units would not be included. That I think is an important aspect when dealing with these things, but it's also very important to stay true about how you perceive these units, so that you can make good choices about them. What I have not tried so far is to only use the A/D of the FF800 clocked to Orpheus and use Orpheus D/A. Who knows it might be the CleverClox technology in Orpheus or the SteadyClock technology in FF800 which makes the impact, there is always the possibility that the combination is better than any single one of them... It's worth a try...

[DR Music]

How do I unsubscribed from this thread???

[SmoothVibe]

Originally Posted by DR Music

How do I unsubscribed from this thread???

You go and watch Dave Pensado's Place...

[psycho_monkey]

Originally Posted by DR Music

How do I unsubscribed from this thread???

haha it's a bit of a car crash....I'm just quietly going to stop posting in it now and leave Smoothvibe to his 15 sets of headphones, his post-mixing and his emotional converters...

...sorry man, it's only gentle jibes....as I said before, if it works for you, keep on it.

[doulos30]

F800 has a lower overall frequency than Orpheus, it's really that simple.

no no no it really isnt

that's the beauty of test equipment and measurements

RightMark Audio Analyzer. Products. Audio Rightmark

go shoot both your converts then get back to me on how amazing the difference is

[HeavyD1176]

IMO i think your trying to justify spending the cash on the new unit, making yourself hear what you want to hear. that being said, if headphones work for you then great but I would try to stop thinking about it so analytically. its hard to enjoy recording and mixing when you give yourself rules on what you can/cant use during what stage. just do what sounds best.

[DR Music]

Originally Posted by SmoothVibe

You go and watch Dave Pensado's Place...

You NEED too watch it!!!

[Xander]

Originally Posted by SmoothVibe

Recording Workflow

1. Production - Set recording quality
1.1 Tracking
- Create and store frequencies
1.2 Producing
- Add/Update/Delete frequencies

Can you please explain how you create, store, add, update, and delete frequencies?

I feel like my skill set would vastly outshine other engineers' if I could create frequencies that they could not. Or if I could update their frequencies and replace them with my own better frequencies.

You know, it's getting more and more difficult to rise above the competition in this market.

Maybe I should start using only frequencies that are prime numbers?