Why does anyone need high end monitoring?

[FFTT]

Just wondering why you wouldn't mix most music on a home made car stereo speaker
set or simply mix on a reasonably good quality powered home computer speaker system.

I mean really, most people listen in their cars or on their computer or with ear buds.

So why spend thousands on monitors when 95% of the people listen on inferior
quality gear.

What would you say is the absolute best home grown configuration to address this
problem?

[dementedchord]

agreed that the state of the art in current consumer useage is abysmal.... but screw them... do it because you have pride in what you do and it makes a difference to you... personally i like to know where the mistakes are so i can correct them.... i dont give a rats ass if they wouldn't have noticed it....

[Eric Greedy]

if most people wore dirty sunglasses... would you while painting?

[chrisj]

Because I do mastering, and because I like immersing myself in the sound of music for pleasure listening

However, I can't _mix_ on super-hi-fi monitoring. I have to mix on single-driver 8" speakers to make the right choices, even for balance. Otherwise, I come up with something that ONLY sounds good on monster hi-fi monitoring.

I need the 8" to get midbass and be able to hear it- in fact the setup I have puts out pretty surprising bass extension. The extreme bandlimitedness of computer speakers and the nasty honky resonances are NOT necessarily or useful.

What you need is the cohesiveness of a single-driver fullrange speaker, and the focus on the midrange that comes from not trading anything off to exaggerate the extreme lows or highs.

At least that's what I think

[jdg]

the dirty glasses analogy is perfect.
you if paint somethign that looks good with clean glasses on, it will look good with dirty glasses on too, and with clean glasses

that said.. i can't mix on my dunlavys.
i mix on some 20yrs old yamaha computer speakers. but i couldn't master on them

[nandoanalog]

Imagine that you`re mixing on a system (be it speakers or acoustic defect) that has a 20 db null at lets say 80hz . You will probably give a boost on your EQ in the low end to compensate for the lack of data at 80hz. That means that your mixes will not be balanced due to that bump on 80 hz. So, they will not be as loud as balanced mixes. Because the limiter will start limiting those 80hz bump before anything else. And if you limit too hard, it will sound nasty. So, in order to not distort too hard you won`t be able to bring up the mix level as loud as a well balanced mix.

Now imagine that the listener is listening to your mix inside a car with 2 subwoofers that just for mere coincidence have a 20 db bump at 80 hz. He want`s your mix to sound as loud as other pro cds that he buys. So he will turn the volume up. Add the 20 db bump that you gave on your EQ to his 20 db bump and you`ll have 40db of pure 80hz distortion.

Now imagine that your mixing system has a 20 db bump at 1khz. You will cut on your EQ that frequency for sure, right?

So....

Now imagine that the listener has a 20 db null in his system at 1khz. You allready cut 20db out of that frequency. Cut 20 db more and you get 40 db of nothing at 1kz.

In order to minimize that problem, your mixes must be well balanced.
And the only way to do it is with good speakers, good acoustics, and good ears.

[musicmann]

Originally Posted by FFTT

Just wondering why you wouldn't mix most music on a home made car stereo speaker
set or simply mix on a reasonably good quality powered home computer speaker system.

So it sounds good on those crappy systems you are mentioning.. THAT'S why you mix on good monitors.. If you can't hear it, you can't adjust or fix it.. Start with the best sounding mix , that is mixed on good / true monitors of your choice, and it will sound good on the consumer systems. A large part of me hopes you are half joking with this question!
dfegad
Larry

[FFTT]

I bring this up because every single band I've ever known tests their mix on their car stereos or their boom boxes just to see how it stacks up to other professional recordings.

The one comment above makes me think that perhaps it might be best to just get
something like a broad spectrum 8" high efficiency mid driver from somebody like B&C and buy or build a simple cabinet to hold it. No tweeter, no crossover, nothing special.

Or.............. just back your car up to the studio and run a monitor mix line out to
a home made aux input to that Delco.

[DontLetMeDrown]

Isn't this the basic theory behind mixing on NS-10s?

[FFTT]

Originally Posted by DontLetMeDrown

Isn't this the basic theory behind mixing on NS-10s?

Exactly, so why can't we find a new system at an affordable price that works this well?

Lets really stretch the budget up to a total cost of $500.00 including any amplifiers.

[Kiwiburger]

For a start - while you are tracking and mixing, your speakers are going to be exposed to some highly dynamic, unfiltered material. This is nothing like a highly compressed and equalised CD or radio broadcast. This is dangerous, speaker frying material. I've destroyed hifi speakers using them to audition drums and bass.

Microphones can pick up low end rumble that you can't even hear on small speakers, and yet is dangerously loud and at the very least will screw with your compressors. E.g. thump from a drummers foot on a high hat mic.

Even if you are only playing with virtual instruments, some of those synths and sub-bass processers can put out speaker poking energy.

Excessive highs and/or distortion can fry you tweeters too. If you are listening on a boxy set of speakers, you are likely to overdo the lows and highs, making muddy, sizzly mixes, and possibly wreck some speakers.

Poor amps are a really problem too - the signal to noise and distortion in cheap hifi stuff absolutely sucks. You can't hear a thing, and you probably won't be able to hear the difference between good or bad preamps or converters.

There are always some hifi listeners who have good gear. The Benchmark DAC-1 is good gear used by hifi listeners. For me, getting a DAC-1 was one of those life transforming experiences. After years of listening through M-Audio and Mackie and other cheap crap, suddenly I could hear detail I had never heard before (with headphones). I suddenly realised how crap my Behringer Truth monitors actually were, and had to upgrade (to Dynaudio B15s and a Lab Gruppen amp, mounted outside the room for ultra low noise).

Prior to that, I had been concentrating on tracking right and buying good front end stuff. I knew I didn't have great speakers, but considered they were better than most hifi. But I listen to old mixes i've done, and I can hear all the stuff I missed on cheap speakers - its embarrasing.

I used to argue with the guys who said buy high end D/A and monitors first. I assumed that because I was mixing ITB, the signal was not being affected by D/A or monitors. But that is obviously a stupid argument - because if you can't hear exactly what you are doing, you are probably making a mess.

[Gravity]

Seems to me that this thread should take a look at this thread here.

This is exactly why we reference to crappy speakers. But I think to get the whole picture you have to listen to a few different monitors.

From another angle, a mentor I had once back in my FOH theatre days once told me "We do 95% of what we do, for the 5% of the people who will notice" I still firmly believe that. It's that statement that really epitomizes the work that we do and is (I feel) part of why we get so passionate about what we do and why forums like this one exist.

You can't ask a question like that without also asking "Why do we spend $5000 on mic pres?" or mics. or compressors. or cables. or eqs. or consoles....

[FFTT]

Everything you say makes perfect sense Kiwi, but what does someone on a home studio budget do to get the best results?

[8th_note]

So why spend thousands on monitors when 95% of the people listen on inferior
quality gear.

To paraphrase nandoanalog, you need to mix on a system that has a wide flat frequency response to get it right. If you're mixing on a system that doesn't go below 80hz or above 10,000 hz, and has large peaks and valleys in frequency response, how do you know what you've got when you're done?

Fortunately I've got a high end stereo system that I use to check all my mixes and masters. That system is brutal in exposing flaws and if the mix holds up there it will sound fine on a boombox. The reverse is not true.

Exactly, so why can't we find a new system at an affordable price that works this well?

I've been an audiophile a lot longer than I've been recording. I started using my daughter's pair of Polk bookshelf speakers as monitors plus an Onkyo integrated amp that I already had. I used this for awhile and decided that I probably needed to get "real" studio monitors. I listened to 6 or 7 different monitors and decided that, to my ears at least, the Polks sounded better. I ended up getting a new pair of Polk Rti 38 bookshelf speakers and a 10" Mirage subwoofer. This was a modest cost solution (but more than $500) and it is smooth, extended, and detailed. I haven't yet heard a moderatly priced (under $1000) set of monitors that I like better.

[Gregg Sartiano]

Originally Posted by Gravity

"We do 95% of what we do, for the 5% of the people who will notice" I still firmly believe that. It's that statement that really epitomizes the work that we do and is (I feel) part of why we get so passionate about what we do and why forums like this one exist.

I disagree. Even someone who has no audio or musical training can perceive over the worst speakers (think: cell phone) with whom they are talking, for instance. People with "normal" hearing have incredible levels of perception -- they just don't realize it.

Here is my main point, though: take any "polished" genre -- i.e.: not lo-fi or with purposely "grimy" production values. Play a track with budget production and a track with major production (assuming audience unfamiliarity) back to back. I'd say most (not all!) people would be able to tell which is which. They just wouldn't know WHY (elements). THAT'S the trick.

[nosebleedaudio]

To me a lot of things are like that, for example most people may not hear the difference on great speakers, my sister was in my place one day and I let her hear a Diana Krall CD, the first thing she ask was, where's the center speaker...
Never heard stereo like it was meant to be heard.
Or how many people can walk by a wonderful piece of art and not notice it, did the artist waste his time?
Could go on and on, it takes intelligence to recognize intelligence.

[FFTT]

I'm just looking at the prices for better speakers at Parts Express trying to get an idea
of what it should cost to put together something better than O.K. for above average
use.

I'm using my Marantz 2252B as a power amplifier for now with Infinity SM-82's

I still need to refoam the SM-82's but haven't got around to installing the kits.

so I'm only half kidding asking these questions.

Those powered cubes look very interesting.

[kafka]

Originally Posted by Gravity

This is exactly why we reference to crappy speakers. But I think to get the whole picture you have to listen to a few different monitors.

From another angle, a mentor I had once back in my FOH theatre days once told me "We do 95% of what we do, for the 5% of the people who will notice" I still firmly believe that. It's that statement that really epitomizes the work that we do and is (I feel) part of why we get so passionate about what we do and why forums like this one exist.

I disagree. I believe 95% of the people hear the flaws. Of those, only the top 5% of the whole will bother to listen long enough to say what's wrong. The rest just quickly decide they don't like it and walk away.

[Kiwiburger]

Hearing is different from listening. I think the average music lover doesn't focus on the detail, but percieves the whole thing holistically and rates it emotionally. A lot of it is subconscious, e.g. a lot of pschoacoustic effects are very subtle but very powerful. I think there are plenty of engineers who struggle to know exactly why they like certain songs or mixes.

I think it's important to have a very low noise floor, very low distortion and full range speakers. I think good monitors are slightly unpleasant to listen to, because it really lets you hear the material very exposed.

What can a budget studio do? I can relate to that. The best thing is to Not spend money unwisely on toys and cheap junk. Save up and buy a few high quality items. I've wasted countless thousands of dollars on crap I no longer own because i've had to replace. In the great scheme of things, good monitors aren't that expensive. I think they should be the first serious investment, so you can start listening to your reference CDs on them, and learn the room you have etc.

There is plenty of stuff you can prioritise and purchase later when you have the money. For example, I think buying hardware compressors and eqs and digital reverbs and stuff is way more expensive. You can get away with free plugins for a long time, and if you don't have good monitors, how can you really appreciate the difference or hear what you are doing with them anyway?

I think it should be very possible to make your own monitor speakers and amp a lot cheaper than commercial stuff. I think it would be a great project for somebody to start an open source website dedicated to building an excellent DIY monitoring system. A group could collaborate on buying the highest quality components, and perfecting the best design for the box and crossover.

It would be really interesting to have a project like that - which could appeal to begineers and top pro's alike. Because i'm convinced there is a lot of compromise in commercial designs. Weight for example. The perfect monitor speakers would weigh a ton, and be very expensive to ship. But if you are building it yourself, weight becomes a non issue. In fact, I would suggest that concrete could be a very good component for a truely high end monitor speaker.

Any takers? I think this could be a viable commercial website for somebody ...

[peeder]

I wouldn't use consumer amps/speakers to monitor with.

The low end of monitoring starts with the BlueSky 2.1 system at ~$500. There are KRKs some people like too. The Event ASP8, ADAM A7, Mackie HR824, Dynaudio BM5A are all speakers with very different profiles at about $1000/pr. It's possible, perhaps adding a sub, to work on these. You will want to supplement with a high-end pair of headphones at about $300 (Sennheiser HD600 or HD650) as a check to remove room effects, and eventually will want to get Gik panels or similar to treat the room. Monitor placement is also critical.

I have a pair of Avantone Mixcubes, and those are distinctly just a second reference. You don't mix on them, you just check a mix on them, to see what it will do on a honky bass-light consumer speaker. It's also a great test of a vocal track.

I think I heard some tracks you posted (maybe it was someone else?) and they were clearly created on consumer gear. You need to get a flat response to work with. Otherwise, to extend the metaphor, you are painting over a canvas already splotched with different colors.

[FFTT]

Oh yeah, my stuff defines cheezmo home recording!!!!


I'm glad you guys are explaining this as clearly as you can.

You would think that by now there would be numerous perfect clones of the classic
go to monitor enclosures, just like we see all the "best of" amps in varying degrees of quality.

I mean we're talking a good 50 years of audio production and there must be a defining
standard to work with. Are we to assume that none of the patents have expired in all this time?

With all this talent here, one would think that a true audio/acoustics engineer
could come up with the perfect DIY kit.

Then it would just be a matter of matching exact specifications.

I know that speaker enclosure design software is readily available, so
how come so many of us still think in terms of buying inferior products at full pop retail?

[peeder]

After you learn your monitors, you will want to be able to replace them with something identical if they fail. Therefore mass-production of standard designs is helpful. If everyone had custom ones, it would all be random.

NS-10s are so popular because they were cheap enough for every studio to have a pair, and so they became standard...you could go to different rooms and have a reference you were familiar with. People are furious that yamaha had to stop making them due to materials shortages. But otherwise they are a distinctly second-rate speaker.

If you came into my treated room with ADAM S3A's and a carefully tuned sub and an ADI-2 DAC, you might be brought to tears hearing some of your favorite music for the first time. If you then played your own stuff on it, you'd be horrified at what you had blindly done sonically (no criticism of what you're doing artistically!). And my room sucks compared to properly architected control rooms with perfect imaging etc.

[Unclenny]

Originally Posted by peeder

If you came into my treated room with ADAM S3A's and a carefully tuned sub and an ADI-2 DAC, you might be brought to tears hearing some of your favorite music for the first time. If you then played your own stuff on it, you'd be horrified at what you had blindly done sonically

After dozens of threads on the subject of the importance of monitors and the listening environment, this thread...and the above statement in particular....really brings the chickens home to roost.

[FFTT]

As our membership here at Gearslutz grows, it would be great to have local area
membership chapters willing to share their individual skills and/or equipment with others.

One member may have great recording facility, while another has that dream guitar or amplifier just perfect for someone's project.

Regarding NS-10's

This is the perfect example of an industry standard that deserves to be available
in todays market.

Ted Weber are you listening?

[DontLetMeDrown]

Originally Posted by FFTT

Exactly, so why can't we find a new system at an affordable price that works this well?

Lets really stretch the budget up to a total cost of $500.00 including any amplifiers.

I don't know if that's really fair. I'm sure most stock car audio systems are made up of more than $500 worth of speakers and amps. BTW, I can't think of which section, but someone recently did a review of the new Yamaha HS-10s. He had started out using NS-10s for years and he switch over to the HS-10 and was very happy with their results. Maybe that guy will chime in here.

[nandoanalog]

Actually, I`m trying to "suck" some knowledge from some gearslut fellas with the objective to make a decent DIY full range monitor.

I know nothing about speaker design or electronics, but it doesn`t look like spaceship science to me.

At the moment I`m reading stuff about how to design a crossover... It looks like it`s the most difficult part.

I hope it turns out well and we can come up with a good DIY full range speaker.

Might cost a hell lot more than 1000$ tho....

[FFTT]

My trouble is having barefoot taste with a totally shoes on budget.

[Alex Niedt]

Mixing on a crappy set of monitors will result in mixes that sound good enough on those crappy monitors. But in the real world, there are MANY types of crappy playback situations. If you're mixing on an accurate system in an accurate room, your mixes will translate reasonably well to all of those situations (providing you can hear and mix well, of course).

[FFTT]

Aha! Then if quality monitoring is so vital, how come speakers like the NS-10's
became an industry standard? Was it really price alone or were they really that good?

Why were they so good for such a reasonable price and which monitors available today
would you choose for the same applications?

[Jimbo]

Originally Posted by FFTT

Aha! Then if quality monitoring is so vital, how come speakers like the NS-10's
became an industry standard?

Thank you.