Why Is Nearfield Monitoring Not Recommended for Mastering?

[morebutter]

Isn't nearfield monitoring more direct and accurate, even in a well treated room?

And what about using full range nearfields at a distance, in a well treated room?

[The MPCist]

Most nearfields don't have the wide range that mid fields have.

[morebutter]

Good point. What if we're talking about nearfields that go down to 30hz? Or nearfields with subs, properly positioned and calibrated?

Is it the case that the low end waves don't have enough distance to develop?

[silverking]

You can do anything you'd like to do with monitoring, near, mid, or anything else that works for you.

Recall that Dave Kutch mastered Alicia Keys last album on FOCAL SOLO6 BE nearfields, and did it in a make-shift mastering studio created at AK's personal studio.

As always, it's less about the gear, and more about the ears.

If you want to see Kutch comment in a vid about why he likes to master on these Focal near fields, click here:
They like Focal.

[Harvey Gerst]

The simple answer is that "most" nearfield speakers have compromised performance, due to their design, as compared to "most" mastering speakers. Out of the dozens of nearfields available, there are only about 4 or 5 that would be capable of doing a consistently outstanding job at mastering. A speaker suitable for mastering should not have a "learning curve" attached, IMHO.

[philip]

Originally Posted by Harvey Gerst

The simple answer is that "most" nearfield speakers have compromised performance, due to their design, as compared to "most" mastering speakers. Out of the dozens of nearfields available, there are only about 4 or 5 that would be capable of doing a consistently outstanding job at mastering. A speaker suitable for mastering should not have a "learning curve" attached, IMHO.

+1

[Stereophonic]

Originally Posted by morebutter

Isn't nearfield monitoring more direct and accurate, even in a well treated room?

And what about using full range nearfields at a distance, in a well treated room?

Not all nearfields are created equally. I switched to the Barefoot MM27 for mastering about 6 months ago and love them to death. I work faster and my masters translate better than ever.

[ACMastering]

It's 50% Speaker and 50% Room - I find it helpful to build the room frequency response curve with the specific speaker you are using.

[MASSIVE Master]

Originally Posted by Stereophonic

Not all nearfields are created equally. I switched to the Barefoot MM27 for mastering about 6 months ago and love them to death. I work faster and my masters translate better than ever.

Calling the MM27's a 'nearfield' is almost like calling a Porsche a "compact car."

There might be some truth to the statement, but they're more like a really great speaker that are able to be used in the near-field.

[Franco]

Originally Posted by silverking

You can do anything you'd like to do with monitoring, near, mid, or anything else that works for you.

Recall that Dave Kutch mastered Alicia Keys last album on FOCAL SOLO6 BE nearfields, and did it in a make-shift mastering studio created at AK's personal studio.

As always, it's less about the gear, and more about the ears.

Do we know if Dave Kutch simply threw the Focals in that room, or if he got a professional to come in and treat the space Alicia Keys wanted to have him work in? With that kind of budget, I wouldn't be surprised if he had someone come in an properly treat and position those speakers in that space.

Also, this doesn't mean that "any" nearfield monitor will work; a Focal monitor is not the same as a KRK, Alesis, Yamaha, Behringer, etc. Not to mention that most people with these kinds of "budget" nearfields don't even have them placed in a proper position in a room, so me personally, when someone asks that question, it tells me they're not knowledgeable enough to know the difference and think "nearfield" is some kind of standard, so my answer is "no, you shouldn't." I would suggest them listen to masters on anything that's full range, as that may sound better than their $600 "Nearfield" monitors.

I knew someone who had a nice pair of full range Kenwood speakers (that they were very familiar with too), but the guy thought that just because the cheap KRK speakers he had bought from GC were "nearfields" that they were better speakers, but that's what happens to a lot of people who believe everything they read.

Most people don't even have the tweeters on their nearfields at ear level, or pointed down towards them if the console is a little on the tall side; much less having them 2-3 times farther away from the back wall than their ears.

[Stereophonic]

Originally Posted by MASSIVE Master

There might be some truth to the statement, but they're more like a really great speaker that are able to be used in the near-field.

yes, they fill a room nicely. Well balanced wherever you stand, superb detail in the sweet spot.

[aleatoric]

I am excited about the new MM35's. Hoping to demo them once they are shipping.

[MHB850]

Originally Posted by ACMastering

It's 50% Speaker and 50% Room - I find it helpful to build the room frequency response curve with the specific speaker you are using.

agreed! that's what i did at electric lady.

michael brauer

[MHB850]

Originally Posted by Stereophonic

yes, they fill a room nicely. Well balanced wherever you stand, superb detail in the sweet spot.

yah, I love them too. it's the first monitor I've worked with that sound great at both low and high volume.

I think mid-fields is a better description for these 75 pounds monsters. Yamahas, proacs are small field.

michael brauer

[Bob Olhsson]

Originally Posted by morebutter

Isn't nearfield monitoring more direct and accurate, even in a well treated room?

And what about using full range nearfields at a distance, in a well treated room?

No!

Near-fields are always a compromise compared to good mains.

[Cellotron]

Originally Posted by Franco

Do we know if Dave Kutch simply threw the Focals in that room, or if he got a professional to come in and treat the space Alicia Keys wanted to have him work in? With that kind of budget, I wouldn't be surprised if he had someone come in an properly treat and position those speakers in that space.

People are under completely the wrong impression if they think Ms. Key's personal studio is anything but top flight and equal to even the best commercial facilities.

I had a number of sessions recording and mixing in what became Alicia's studio (from the outside it's just a large house in Glen Cove, Long Island) prior to her buying it - it was then owned by Fred Guarino and run under the name "Tiki Recording". Alicia bought the facility - which already sounded quite good - and then revamped studio A to make it even better (including eventually bringing in an SSL Duality console).

Best regards,
Steve Berson

[Franco]

^^Thanks for the insight. Advertisements have a way of tricking people into believing things that quickly get transformed into completely different ideas (i.e., "Did you hear Alicia Keys' last album was mastered on Nearfields? Man, all you need are those Edirol monitors, they're about the same size!")

[Sunbreak Music]

Originally Posted by Cellotron

People are under completely the wrong impression if they think Ms. Key's personal studio is anything but top flight and equal to even the best commercial facilities.

I had a number of sessions recording and mixing in what became Alicia's studio (from the outside it's just a large house in Glen Cove, Long Island) prior to her buying it - it was then owned by Fred Guarino and run under the name "Tiki Recording". Alicia bought the facility - which already sounded quite good - and converted one of the floors which had studio's B & C to residences and then revamped studio A to make it even better (including bringing in an SSL Duality console).

Best regards,
Steve Berson

It has been interesting to hear this slide into urban legend territory.

[UnderTow]

Originally Posted by morebutter

And what about using full range nearfields at a distance

Then they are not exactly near fields, are they?

Alistair

[lucey]

I'm a fan of a full range speaker used 'nearby' ... around 7-8'

[Cellotron]

Originally Posted by lucey

I'm a fan of a full range speaker used 'nearby' ... around 7-8'

fwiw - I monitor full range floor standers at a similar distance as well.

Best regards,
Steve Berson

[lucey]

my speakers were often criticized in hi fi circles as working best at close distances .... booyah.

[Cellotron]

Originally Posted by Sunbreak Music

It has been interesting to hear this slide into urban legend territory.

I don't see why it has. There were a number of articles on it when she first opened it.
i.e. -
Alicia Keys Opens Recording Studio in New York



From my understanding they were in the middle of renovations of the live room at the time when Dave Kutch used it as an ad hoc mastering room - but it was a really nice sounding room more on the deadish side when I recorded in it - so I have a feeling it wasn't all that compromising of a situation.

Best regards,
Steve Berson

[bob katz]

I had a number of sessions recording and mixing in what became Alicia's studio (from the outside it's just a large house in Glen Cove, Long Island) prior to her buying it - it was then owned by Fred Guarino and run under the name "Tiki Recording". Alicia bought the facility - which already sounded quite good - and converted one of the floors which had studio's B & C to residences and then revamped studio A to make it even better (including bringing in an SSL Duality console).

Best regards,
Steve Berson

Interesting. I did a couple of recordings at Tiki myself in my New York years. Yes, calling Alicia Keys' studio a "project studio" is like calling Bill Gates a "self-made man."

[Greg Reierson]

Originally Posted by Harvey Gerst

The simple answer is that "most" nearfield speakers have compromised performance, due to their design, as compared to "most" mastering speakers. \

Thy this: Book an hour of time at your local mastering studio and listen to their mains for a while. Bring your favorite near fields and amps along. Switch between them. If the nearfields are up to it, they won't sound like little boxes compared to the mastering speakers. If they do, they're probably not a good choice for mastering.


GR

[bmanic]

Originally Posted by ACMastering

It's 50% Speaker and 50% Room - I find it helpful to build the room frequency response curve with the specific speaker you are using.

I'd say the room is much more important. You can do decent work in a great room with mediocre speakers, whereas you'll have huge problems with even the best speakers in the world in a mediocre room.

At least this is my experience..

Oh, and it's always 90% the engineer, isn't it?

Cheers!
bManic

[Bourbaki]

Alicias last album, 'as I am' sounded good in my room. It was a good recording do you agree?

[Tarekith]

That equals 190%, I'm confused?

[glissando]

Originally Posted by Harvey Gerst

The simple answer is that "most" nearfield speakers have compromised performance, due to their design, as compared to "most" mastering speakers. Out of the dozens of nearfields available, there are only about 4 or 5 that would be capable of doing a consistently outstanding job at mastering. A speaker suitable for mastering should not have a "learning curve" attached, IMHO.

EVERY speaker has a learning curve..it's all relative... c'mon

[Harvey Gerst]

Originally Posted by glissando

EVERY speaker has a learning curve..it's all relative... c'mon

I don't think most people hafta learn how a Duntech translates.