Headphone Mixes

[DubCity]

Has anyone in here ever used strictly headphones while mixing and got an accurate mix? Just curious.

[phillysoulman]

Originally Posted by DubCity

Has anyone in here ever used strictly headphones while mixing and got an accurate mix? Just curious.

Yes

[MiserableSod]

No.

[phillysoulman]

Ive found that my ATH M50s relate the best

[bgrotto]

It's never worked for me.

[MYAMS]

ive found in headphones (beyerdynamics 770) work better than my dynaudio bm5's in an untreated room

[staudio]

I can do it on my Sennheiser HD600's. You need to know the cans really well and you have to understand how cans misrepresent what you hear.

Headphones make the stereo image seem wider than it is. Effects like reverb and delay are more noticeable and therefore you mix in too little. Low end frequencies/balance are harder to get exactly right so you have to get used to being conservative with the kick/bass level. With cans, vocals and other stuff never sounds exactly in the center (too me) even though they are. Vocal automation is very hard to get right, because you can hear the vocal clearly at almost any level so judging loudness is difficult. Stuff usually sounds more present and clear with headphones so you can often get fooled into thinking something is fine when it actually lacks definition/clarity. Once I got used to my cans it all became second nature and now I use my headphones for reference with confidence.

[Franco]

Originally Posted by staudio

You need to know the cans really well and you have to understand how cans misrepresent what you hear.

This has been the most accurate statement I've read on Gearslutz with regards to mixing with headphones.

[bgrotto]

Originally Posted by Franco

This has been the most accurate statement I've read on Gearslutz with regards to mixing with headphones.

Hey, that's not fair!! My post was 100% accurate:

Originally Posted by bgrotto

It's never worked for me.

Also, just to split hairs (cuz it's Gearslutz, so why the hell not?), the cans don't misinterpret what you hear. Your brain misinterprets what the mix really sounds like when you're listening in cans (in particular, changes in ambience and the center channel's relative volume).


...just sayin'.

[Franco]

Originally Posted by bgrotto

the cans don't misinterpret what you hear. Your brain misinterprets what the mix really sounds like when you're listening in cans (in particular, changes in ambience and the center channel's relative volume).

Saying this assumes that listening over any pair of loudspeakers gives you an accurate reproduction of any and all mixes, 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).

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.

[jkhuri44]

I second PhillySoulman's comments,

the ATH M50's translate nicely And i have no probs mixing solely on them...if i have to!



Jamil.

[bgrotto]

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'.

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.)

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...

[Franco]

"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."

Sounds very similar to:

"You need to know the cans really well and you have to understand how cans misrepresent what you hear."

Now you're catching on!

[Franco]

P.S.:

"First of all, stereo absolutely has a center (or "middle") channel*.."

Uh, no. Stereo has a "central image", which is totally dependent on the only two channels in a stereo system, Left and Right. Shifting either speaker will change the central image and it will disappear with the absence of either channel. In case this isn't clear, you can't "solo" the central image on a stereo system (not talking about accessing the center frequencies that can be focused on a M/S matrix, but referring to fine-tuning the center image by placement of the left & right speakers), unlike a surround system which does have a central channel.

[bgrotto]

Originally Posted by Franco

"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."

Sounds very similar to:

"You need to know the cans really well and you have to understand how cans misrepresent what you hear."

Now you're catching on!

OK...now finish the thought...

Originally Posted by bgrotto

...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.

[dannygold]

I think it's just a matter of knowing what you can and can't do on headphones. I personally find it absolutely impossible determine if a vocal is in tune on cans. Somehow it has to be coming thru the air to hear that (for me). So I'd never using tuning software on headphones, or edit vocals in regards to pitch decisions. It's also very easy to add too much reverb, since you're hearing a lack of "room" in headphones for obvious reasons. Bass tends to be a bit weird too. And for sure the "phantom" center channel is different. Your panning will end up whack if you just mix on headphones (unless you use some fancy system that recreated the center image closer to how it would work on speakers). If you keep these things in mind you can MOSTLY mix on headphones, but you need to reference on SOME kind of speakers at some point in the process.

[bgrotto]

OK...Let me try to explain as simply as I know how:

The middle channel is a mathematical fact. You can look at stereo two ways:

The Left Channel is derived by adding Middle Channel to the Side Channel, while the Right Channel is derived by subtracting the Side Channel from the Middle Channel (mathematically, L=(M+S) and R=(M-S))

- or -

The Middle Channel is L+R and the Side Channel is L-R (mathematically: M=(L+R) S=(L-R))

Matter of fact, stereophonic sound was originally conceived as both LR and MS:

Blumlein conceived stereo not just as a left (L) and right (R)
speaker signal but also in terms of a sum signal M (=
L+R) and a difference signal S (=L–R). The letters M
and S stand for 'mid' and 'side' signals (as in the M-S
microphone technique): M is the signal containing
information about the middle of the stereo stage,
whereas S only contains information about the sides –
since S=0 for a central signal.

See this webpage (it's where I got the quote above) Gerzon Archive if you're having a hard time wrapping your head around the math.

In the meantime, if you wanna experience this for yourself, try this:

- Load up your favorite mix
- pan the left and right channels to the center
- invert the polarity on one channel

That stuff that goes away is the middle channel. The stuff that's left over is the side channel.

Originally Posted by Franco

P.S.:

"First of all, stereo absolutely has a center (or "middle") channel*.."

Uh, no. Stereo has a "central image", which is totally dependent on the only two channels in a stereo system, Left and Right. Shifting either speaker will change the central image and it will disappear with the absence of either channel. In case this isn't clear, you can't "solo" the central image on a stereo system (not talking about accessing the center frequencies that can be focused on a M/S matrix, but referring to fine-tuning the center image by placement of the left & right speakers), unlike a surround system which does have a central channel.

[bgrotto]

Oh, by the way: the mp3 format encodes audio not to left and right channels, but to middle and side channels. So do a bunch of other encoders (including some DAWs' stereo-interleaved or joint-stereo type formats).

[Franco]

I think you're not understanding the difference the mid information on a stereo recording and the central image of a stereo system, this is why I went back and edited my last reply to say:

"(not talking about accessing the center frequencies that can be focused on a M/S matrix..)"

When you split a stereo on it's mid/side, the information that you get when decoding the mid channel is mono, and you can hear this on headphones as well; the center image in a system happens when the frequencies coming from the left speaker overlap the ones coming from the right, and this is why it's refered to as an "image" because it will be different for example, if you have the speaker too close to each other, and too far away from each other (unlike decoding a stereo file for a m/s matrix, the outcome is based not on acoustics); part of setting up your speakers in your room involves finding the optimal placement of the speakers relative to the room.

You're talking about the mid information of a stereo file - that is a mathematical computation, you're right about that. However, this is not what we're talking about when talking about the center IMAGE - that is an acoustic property that depends on placement of speakers and signature of a room. It will vary depending on several factors, unlike the mathematical outcome of decoding a stereo file into its mid/side information.

Can you isolate a stereo track's center information? SURE - hit "Mono" on your monitor controller.

Can you isolate a stereo track's center image? NO, you can only change it by repositioning your speakers.

I don't think you're talking about the mid channel when you originally said this:

"Your brain misinterprets what the mix really sounds like when you're listening in cans (in particular, changes in ambience and the center channel's relative volume)."

There's no chance in "ambience and volume" when decoding a stereo file to its mid/side; you get a change in this by skewing the center image.

You still don't have an accurate statement about headphones.

[bgrotto]

Originally Posted by Franco

I think you're not understanding the difference the mid information on a stereo recording and the central image of a stereo system, this is why I went back and edited my last reply to say:

"(not talking about accessing the center frequencies that can be focused on a M/S matrix..)"

When you split a stereo on it's mid/side, the information that you get when decoding the mid channel is mono, and you can hear this on headphones as well; the center image in a system happens when the frequencies coming from the left speaker overlap the ones coming from the right, and this is why it's refered to as an "image" because it will be different for example, if you have the speaker too close to each other, and too far away from each other (unlike decoding a stereo file for a m/s matrix, the outcome is based not on acoustics); part of setting up your speakers in your room involves finding the optimal placement of the speakers relative to the room.

You're talking about the mid information of a stereo file - that is a mathematical computation, you're right about that. However, this is not what we're talking about when talking about the center IMAGE - that is an acoustic property that depends on placement of speakers and signature of a room. It will vary depending on several factors, unlike the mathematical outcome of decoding a stereo file into its mid/side information.

You still don't have an accurate statement about headphones.

Then you're not reading carefully enough. I clearly drew the distinction between the center image and the center channel, and the ramifications of each when mixing in headphones:

Originally Posted by bgrotto

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.

(*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.)

You, on the other hand, incorrectly insisted that there simply is no middle channel in stereo:

Originally Posted by Franco

not "center channel", unless we're not talking about stereo but rather surround, where a center channel is actually employed

...and...

Originally Posted by Franco

Uh, no. Stereo has a "central image", which is totally dependent on the only two channels in a stereo system, Left and Right.

What would constitute an "accurate statement" about headphones? I'm most certainly biased, but I'd say I've been pretty right on...

[Franco]

"(*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.)"

Oh really now? What do you call what is happening inside your head (brain) when it's picking up the information coming into your left ear, and then your right ear, when listening to anything, including headphones?

"You, on the other hand, incorrectly insisted that..."

Dude, stop. LOL, go ahead and choose my poor choice of words for what I was trying to point out, everywhere else I've told you that there is a difference between a center "channel" and "image" which is the lack of perception you started to point out, but called it the "channel" which is wrong. The "center channel" you're talking about is simply the shared information between the left and right channels, which as you've just pointed out, can also be heard on headphones and is NOT the basis of this argument, because if it was, and for some reason you COULDN'T listen to the mid information over headphones, you'd have a point. Listening to audio with headphones creates a narrow center image (perceived), you could have said THAT, instead of saying first that NOT hearing the center information (mid) on headphones is the issue.

[bgrotto]

Alright, forget about it. The discussion is obviously going over your head.

Hopefully somebody got something out of all this nonsense.

Originally Posted by Franco

"(*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.)"

Oh really now? What do you call what is happening inside your head (brain) when it's picking up the information coming into your left ear, and then your right ear, when listening to anything, including headphones?

"You, on the other hand, incorrectly insisted that..."

Dude, stop. LOL, go ahead and choose my poor choice of words for what I was trying to point out, everywhere else I've told you that there is a difference between a center "channel" and "image" which is the lack of perception you started to point out, but called it the "channel" which is wrong. The "center channel" you're talking about is simply the shared information between the left and right channels, which as you've just pointed out, can also be heard on headphones and is NOT the basis of this argument, because if it was, and for some reason you COULDN'T listen to the mid information over headphones, you'd have a point. Listening to audio with headphones creates a narrow center image (perceived), you could have said THAT, instead of saying first that NOT hearing the center information (mid) on headphones is the issue.

[Franco]

LOL, Yeah, hopefully they'll go back to read what staudio said and realize there's a difference between the center information and the center image, and that you don't know what you're talking about.

You still don't have an accurate thought to support your view as to why headphones aren't as accurate as speakers for translating the center image; staudio pointed it out very clearly - defined why headphones can trick you into hearing an "uneven" center image and he then explains how he compensates for it.

You thought you knew better and I simply proved your point wrong, which is that there's a difference between the center "channel" (signal/frequencies) and what is perceived as the center "image."

We can go on for days because you're one of those people who simply doesn't like to admit when they're wrong!

[bgrotto]

Originally Posted by Franco

LOL, Yeah, hopefully they'll go back to read what staudio said and realize there's a difference between the center information and the center image, and that you don't know what you're talking about.

You still don't have an accurate thought to support your view as to why headphones aren't as accurate as speakers for translating the center image; staudio pointed it out very clearly - defined why headphones can trick you into hearing an "uneven" center image and he then explains how he compensates for it.

...there's a difference between the center "channel" (signal/frequencies) and what is perceived as the center "image."

Dude, again, I'm clear on the difference between the middle "channel" and "image". That differences has been the crux of my argument:

(*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.)

As I said, STEREO AUDIO (even in headphones) HAS A MIDDLE CHANNEL. This is an indisputable fact (although you certainly made an effort to the contrary).

I also said that headphones localize it poorly (also a fact). Which is to say that headphones do not accurately recreate the center image. Actually, as I said above, listening in headphones pretty much eliminates the center image. Yes, you can hear the stuff that's panned center, but it's a completely different listening experience; instead of hearing the sonics in 3 dimensions on a soundstage in front of you, you hear it floating around in the center of your head. There simply is no image, nor is there any concrete localization of the center channel information.

But the mid channel doesn't go anywhere; it can't, as it's part of the stereo format (regardless of playback system).

This is such basic stuff that my mind is completely boggled as to how it could be going over your head. Maybe my writing is unclear, although looking back over my posts, I'm not sure how it could be stated any clearer. It's just so damn simple and basic.

Originally Posted by Franco

You thought you knew better and I simply proved your point wrong, which is that there's a difference between the center "channel" (signal/frequencies) and what is perceived as the center "image."

We can go on for days because you're one of those people who simply doesn't like to admit when they're wrong!

Your "proof" thus far has consisted of replies of "LOL, dude, LOL". Hardly a convincing argument. As for co-signing staudio, well, you may have chosen a losing battle there. I hate to drag him into this, cuz he seems competent and for the most part, on point, but there's a couple issues with his post:

Headphones make the stereo image seem wider than it is. Effects like reverb and delay are more noticeable and therefore you mix in too little. Low end frequencies/balance are harder to get exactly right so you have to get used to being conservative with the kick/bass level. With cans, vocals and other stuff never sounds exactly in the center (too me) even though they are. Vocal automation is very hard to get right, because you can hear the vocal clearly at almost any level so judging loudness is difficult. Stuff usually sounds more present and clear with headphones so you can often get fooled into thinking something is fine when it actually lacks definition/clarity. Once I got used to my cans it all became second nature and now I use my headphones for reference with confidence.

Headphones often do make the stereo image seem wider, that is true, but only when you're dealing with a poorly-treated room. Anyone who's ever sat in a well-treated control room with great monitors knows that headphones simply can't TOUCH the depth of sound field, width, and even HEIGHT of a good loudspeaker rig.

When mixing in cans, ambient effects like reverb are actually often applied TOO HEAVILY, because you're not hearing the natural ambience of the room you're mixing in (effectively making the audio in the cans "drier", thus requiring MORE, not LESS, spatial processing).

The accuracy of the low end varies dramatically from headphone to headphone (in particular, between open and closed designs), there simply are no blanket truths there, other than cans' general inability to reproduce extreme low frequencies.

As he said, "With cans, vocals and other stuff never sounds exactly in the center even though they are". Again, this is the non-existence of the center image (remember, the middle channel has NOT GONE ANYWHERE because it CAN'T!!). Again, the crux of my point.

As for stuff sounding more clear and present, well, that's another issue with deficiencies in the acoustics of the room. If he's hearing cloudy, unclear images coming out of his loudspeakers, his room is probably muddy in the low mids, likely a cause of too many reflections. Listening more quietly on the loud speakers, as well as some basic room treatment, would go a long way in correcting this issue.

I'm fully confident that staudio can produce fine mixes with his headphones; again, I'm not die-hard opposed to mixing in cans. I'm just saying it's waaaaaay harder, and I've yet to meet a single person who mixes better in cans than he does in loudspeakers.

That pretty much sums everything I could possibly ever want to say about mixing with cans, so I'll respectfully bow out now. If you feel the need to reply, be my guest, just try to offer up something meaningful in the way of a coherent argument instead of childishly responding with another "LOL, dude, you're wrong".

I'll be happy to admit I'm wrong when you prove me so. I've done so plenty of times in the past.

[Franco]

Sorry, I didn't mean to offend you by laughing. It's just that most of what you've said is full of contradictions that I found it laughable at the time.

At this point, I don't see the need for me to re-type what I've already said.

[Franco]

"If you feel the need to reply, be my guest, just try to offer up something meaningful in the way of a coherent argument instead of childishly responding with another "LOL, dude, you're wrong"."

Wow. I'll leave you (and anyone who is interested in this topic) with this, since you assume I've only been "LOLing" this whole time and haven't said anything meaningful:

"Again, this is the non-existence of the center image (remember, the middle channel has NOT GONE ANYWHERE because it CAN'T!!). Again, the crux of my point."

When listening to headphones, where does the mid material appear to "be"? If you're listening to headphones and there is material that appears to be in the center of your head, how can that possibly be, since you don't have an ear behind your nose? Could it be that this is your perceived central image? Is it accurate? Probably not, but to say there's no center image when listening to headphones simply states you don't hear things "in the middle" which is wrong.

That's a wrap for me, and I still like what that other dude said best, simple, straight to the point and accurately-expressed.

[Raul_d'Ablaing]

Originally Posted by phillysoulman

Ive found that my ATH M50s relate the best

I second PhillySoulman's comments,

the ATH M50's translate nicely And i have no probs mixing solely on them...if i have to!



Jamil.

I just picked up a pair and I am loving my ATH M50s. My room needs much more treatment so I'm finding myself leaning on them for reliable spectral info, especially in the low end. I've yet to mix a song solely on them though.

Raul

[phillysoulman]

Originally Posted by Raul_d'Ablaing

I just picked up a pair and I am loving my ATH M50s.

Glad you like them,mate!!
Until I bought those,I was a Sony 7506 guy, but now Im loving the M50s.

[Raul_d'Ablaing]

Originally Posted by phillysoulman

Glad you like them,mate!!
Until I bought those,I was a Sony 7506 guy, but now Im loving the M50s.

I've been reading all of the hot press on them and the positive comments (including yours ) on the boards. I have a pair of HD414 reissues which I still like to use off and on for the midrange but using the ATs are a whole new world in monitoring for me. They are my favorite studio purchase I've made in the last year.

[A Fak]

Has anybody tried the AKG-K240 DF its discountinued now, but I was wondering how it compares to the AT-M50 or other headphones in that caliber? This was from AKG's website:

• Diffuse-field equalized, designed strictly to IRT (German Institute for Radio Technology) standards
• Single cable for ease of use
• Semi-open, circumaural design

Used as reference headphones by many radio stations worldwide, this model has been in the AKG catalog unchanged for ten years and has become a classic by now.

With their flat frequency response, these headphones provide an uncolored sound. The diffuse-field equalized K 240 DF meets not only the stringent criteria of the IRT standard but those of professional sound engineers as well.

Created to fulfill the international IRT specification, the K 240 DF establishes a uniform quality standard free from environmental variables. In fixed apposition to the ears, the sound output quality is unchanging and reliable – as opposed to loudspeaker monitors, sound from which is markedly influenced and colored by variations in control room architecture and furnishings.