Good enough for mixing - but not for mastering?
Nonlinear
Thread Starter
#1
28th January 2013
Old 28th January 2013
  #1
Gear addict
 
Joined: Oct 2011
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 433

Thread Starter
Good enough for mixing - but not for mastering?

I'm a little confused - I see it posted often here that such and such speakers are "good enough for mixing but not for mastering".

The other common expression is, "don't expect to fix a bad mix in mastering".

So, why isn't the monitoring equally important in BOTH areas? In other words, how can a speaker be "good enough for mixing but not for mastering"?
IIIrd
Verified Member
#2
28th January 2013
Old 28th January 2013
  #2
Lives for gear
 
IIIrd's Avatar
 
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 928

Verified Member
The best speakers (monitors) for mastering are the ones you know the best....in your room. Meaning....you can master on anything if you know them well enough and the room that they're in.
WBM
#3
28th January 2013
Old 28th January 2013
  #3
WBM
Lives for gear
 
Joined: Dec 2006
Location: Miami, FLorida

Same thing the other way around, a lipinski speaker 'll not be good for mixing since has too much detailed coming out and don't let you concentrate on the mix
#4
28th January 2013
Old 28th January 2013
  #4
Gear Head
 
Joined: Oct 2004
Location: Lahti, Finland
Posts: 44

So you're saying Lipinski monitors are too good for mixing, eh ?? Please tell me you were kidding.
807Recordings
Verified Member
#5
28th January 2013
Old 28th January 2013
  #5
Lives for gear
 
807Recordings's Avatar
 
Joined: Dec 2006
Location: Dresden, Deutschland
Posts: 804

Verified Member
And the 800series b&w at abbey road used for mixing can't be used for mastering. Lol
#6
28th January 2013
Old 28th January 2013
  #6
mymixisbetterthanyours!
 
Joined: Oct 2006
Location: Salzburg / Berlin
Posts: 2,519

I'm both pro mixing and pro mastering.

When mixing, I mostly mix on other speakers than my B&W N802 though. Check once in a while on the mastering setup, sure, but the mixing itself is done on the nearfields.

It just works better.

Mastering is 100% done on the B&Ws.

Always use the tool that's best for the job.
IIIrd
Verified Member
#7
29th January 2013
Old 29th January 2013
  #7
Lives for gear
 
IIIrd's Avatar
 
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 928

Verified Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by 807Recordings View Post
And the 800series b&w at abbey road used for mixing can't be used for mastering. Lol
shit, thats where i'm going wrong
Quote
1
#8
29th January 2013
Old 29th January 2013
  #8
Gear maniac
 
Rob Murray's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2006
Location: Austin, TX

Often a speaker designed for mixing is missing the bottom octave and a little less sensitive, where bass problems and dynamics are often the bread and butter of a mastering dude. Conversely most speakers "made for" mastering are a little more sensitive/fragile and a bit bulky/needy in the room placement department. I've certainly done more than a couple mixes on my Dunlavy's, and I have friends mixing on ATC's, PMC's and B&W's. On the flip side seeing as most mix rooms are also tracking rooms, and clients often are listening back, changing levels etc. a mix monitor tends to be more robust than a mastering monitor. I've worked my mastering career mostly with 802's and Dunlavy's and never blown a tweeter. But bring up a rock mix, with a careless client at the helm, or track something quiet when the client accidentally hits the mic and you'll likely have some pricy regular maintenance/driver replacements going on.

So basically, in a mastering setup headroom/bass extension are more the concern, whereas with a mix/recording setup you can pretty much drop the bottom octave, and give up a little headroom for something a bit more robust mechanically. Can a speaker do both? Of course, but that's probably gonna cost you. Also I know a lot more mixers that work in different room based on budget, and travel with their speakers... Now imagine the same with a set of Duntech Princesses, or BB5's, well geez now a pair of Studio 100's or 1031's are sounding great. There's a million reasons why there's a million different speakers out there, it doesn't make one worse or better, (of course there are things that do!) but you need to use what best gets the job done, and meets the requirements you need in your particular situation.
Quote
1
Waltz Mastering
Verified Member
#9
29th January 2013
Old 29th January 2013
  #9
Lives for gear
 
Waltz Mastering's Avatar
 
Joined: Mar 2008
Location: 3rd Stone From The Sun
Posts: 3,301

Verified Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nonlinear View Post
why isn't the monitoring equally important in BOTH areas? In other words, how can a speaker be "good enough for mixing but not for mastering"?
It seems a lot has to do with the room design. Mix rooms these days typically aren't designed and built to support the room for floor standing far field full range speakers that are popular for mastering.

Ideally, I thinks it's easier to mix in a purpose built mastering room than it would be to master in a purpose built mix room because of the speaker proximity alone, although I've seen hybrid rooms that are suited for mid fields which can even out the playing field a bit..
Quote
1
WBM
#10
29th January 2013
Old 29th January 2013
  #10
WBM
Lives for gear
 
Joined: Dec 2006
Location: Miami, FLorida

Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy View Post
So you're saying Lipinski monitors are too good for mixing, eh ?? Please tell me you were kidding.
May be you have to read first, I said it's not a good speaker for mixing
Nonlinear
Thread Starter
#11
29th January 2013
Old 29th January 2013
  #11
Gear addict
 
Joined: Oct 2011
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 433

Thread Starter
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob Murray View Post
... a mix monitor tends to be more robust than a mastering monitor.
Ah, that's an interesting twist I hadn't considered.

So a mix monitor is leaning a little more towards a musical instrument speaker in that it can take the abuse of raw, uncompressed audio.

Then a mastering monitor is more about finesse and detail - leaning more towards a high-end stereo speaker.

That makes sense. Of course there's a lot of overlap and grey but I get the idea. Thanks for the insight!
MASSIVE Master
Verified Member
#12
30th January 2013
Old 30th January 2013
  #12
Lives for gear
 
MASSIVE Master's Avatar
 
Joined: Mar 2004
Location: Chicago (Schaumburg / Hoffman Est.) IL

Verified Member
Actually bought a set of (Tyler, of course) D4M's last year (A) for a "smallie" reference and (B) for the occasional mixing project (doesn't happen much, but I have a few clients from "back in the day" that still want me to mix).

I have to admit, that I mix faster on the small speakers -- Probably because I'm not sweating every little detail to get it all together. THAT SAID, once I'm "in the pocket" I switch over to the D1's and start the hardcore tweaking...
inlinenl
Verified Member
#13
30th January 2013
Old 30th January 2013
  #13
Lives for gear
 
inlinenl's Avatar
 
Joined: May 2005
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 2,119

Verified Member
I love "Hi-Fi" speakers .... they make great monitors and mastering_speakers .. it's just they way the look that makes me worry ...
#14
30th January 2013
Old 30th January 2013
  #14
Gear Head
 
Joined: Oct 2004
Location: Lahti, Finland
Posts: 44

Quote:
Originally Posted by WBM View Post
May be you have to read first, I said it's not a good speaker for mixing
You said "too much detailed coming out and don't let you concentrate on the mix "

I would prefer monitors that reveal the detail and can reproduce the dynamics. I've never heard of a monitor that brings out so much detail that you can't concentrate on mixing.

I don't have Lipinski monitors, though I do have Lipinski gear. What have you found out of the Lipinski monitors that make them not suitable for mixing ?
#15
2nd February 2013
Old 2nd February 2013
  #15
Lives for gear
 
maks's Avatar
 
Joined: Dec 2003
Location: Funkygroovy, NYC
Posts: 508

^ there is a reason why Yamaha NS-10m have been used for mixing the world over. Music production and i believe mixing is part of this, the fine micro detail world of high-end speakers tires the mind and sometimes links the musical ideas to irrelevant splitting of atoms and creates obsessive attention to datail which sometimes backfires at the big picture. As in fine arts, one cant constantly use micro brushes to paint a 20x30 canvas, its tiring and places too much responsibility on the artist. And sometimes in music its simply, what is wrong often sounds right . Also because of the fact that todays cheaper converters output fidelity 10X what tascam portastudio's ,lol , or other recording mediums did back then, working on 100x magnification is once again not necessary for the majority of todays playback systems. And ITB(edm, etc) generated material does not suffer from cable noise, multi-mic phase issues, etc or other inconvenience of acoustic music, less need for extreme magnification. The best answer ofcourse is to have both, detail monitors and ones that are funke
Bob Olhsson
Verified Member
#16
2nd February 2013
Old 2nd February 2013
  #16
Motown legend
 
Bob Olhsson's Avatar
 
Joined: Jun 2002
Location: Songwriter Gulch, Nashville TN
Posts: 13,361
My Studio

Verified Member
It's like comparing a range-finder to a ground glass viewfinder.

Speed often leads to much better mixes so a range-finder can be a really useful mixing tool. Mastering is about catching minutia that may have been missed by the range-finder so the ground glass seems more appropriate.
t_d
#17
2nd February 2013
Old 2nd February 2013
  #17
t_d
Lives for gear
 
t_d's Avatar
 
Joined: Sep 2004
Location: pound ridge, NY
Posts: 1,954

i do as much mixing as i do mastering and chose the MM27 as my monitors. couldn't be happier. i find them to be amazing for both duties.
Topic:
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Similar Threads
Thread
Thread Starter / Forum
Replies
theartfollies / So much gear, so little time!
0
rustyguns / Mastering forum
4
hw2nw / Mastering forum
4
dr_von / High end
11

Forum Jump
 
Register FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

SEO by vBSEO ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.