Why angle nearfield monitors?

DarkEcho · 21st February 2008, 06:59 PM

What is the theory behind angling nearfields versus having them on the same parallel plane?

Ethan Winer · 21st February 2008, 08:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DarkEcho

What is the theory behind angling nearfields versus having them on the same parallel plane?

Thanks for moving this to the public forum.

All speakers have two frequency response curves - on axis and off-axis. The goal is for the response to be flat not only on axis, but also at different angles. However, few loudspeakers achieve that. So the main reason to have your speakers facing you is to ensure you get the flattest response they're capable of.

--Ethan

DarkEcho · 21st February 2008, 09:01 PM

I see. So why not then have the speakers facing eachother with your head directly in the middle so that each speaker cone is firing directly into its' respective ear's canal? Wouldn't this further improve the perceived on axis response because its not coming in to your ear at an angle? Setup your nearfields almost like distanced headphones?

Old Cane · 21st February 2008, 09:08 PM

I tried that when I was a kid. I'm sure Ethan has a better answer but in short, without getting into soundstage, imaging and so on, it didn't sound like I was in the middle of the band. It sounded like I was in the middle of a shooting gallery. I think the technical term is "crap".

jamsmith · 21st February 2008, 09:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DarkEcho

I see. So why not then have the speakers facing eachother with your head directly in the middle so that each speaker cone is firing directly into its' respective ear's canal? Wouldn't this further improve the perceived on axis response because its not coming in to your ear at an angle? Setup your nearfields almost like distanced headphones?

These are not simple questions. In fact out of everything we discuss here on gearslutz, acoustic and psycoacoustics is the most complex. This is my Bible and most dog eared tome: The Master Handbook of Acoustics by F. Alton Everest. I promise you it will be the best book you ever by. After that, get Bob Katz book on Mastering and the Yamaha Sound Reinforcment handbook.

Chrisc_o · 21st February 2008, 10:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Old Cane

I think the technical term is "crap".

HAHAHAHA!

Genius answer!

AudioFields · 22nd February 2008, 01:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ethan Winer

Thanks for moving this to the public forum.

All speakers have two frequency response curves - on axis and off-axis. The goal is for the response to be flat not only on axis, but also at different angles. However, few loudspeakers achieve that. So the main reason to have your speakers facing you is to ensure you get the flattest response they're capable of.

--Ethan

Should I do this with JBL LSR's with room correction?

Ethan Winer · 22nd February 2008, 06:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DarkEcho

So why not then have the speakers facing eachother with your head directly in the middle so that each speaker cone is firing directly into its' respective ear's canal? Wouldn't this further improve the perceived on axis response because its not coming in to your ear at an angle? Setup your nearfields almost like distanced headphones?

That probably would work, but then it would be like headphones which are different to mix on than speakers. I don't have a good answer for you on that. Grab a couple of bar stools and try it, and let us know what you find.

Years ago a friend of mine stuck a pair of 6x9 car speakers onto two sides of a small cardboard box with openings for the sound. We'd put the box upside down on our heads making a huge pair of headphones, and it sounded amazing. Well, amazing for 1970 anyway.

--Ethan

Ethan Winer · 22nd February 2008, 06:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AudioFields

Should I do this with JBL LSR's with room correction?

I'm not a big fan of DSP room "correction" because it doesn't really correct much. But I suppose you could try it.

--Ethan

DarkEcho · 22nd February 2008, 07:00 PM

Ethan, I understand you point.. I have just requested a few books (including the one jamsmith suggested, thank you!) about psychoacoustics. I want to understand more about why headphone mixing is different from nearfield mixing as far as the stereo image and the angles of the audio reaching your ears.

Maybe it would be smart to mix mostly on headphones, as that is what most people will be listening to your mix on... that or in the car, right?

Even cars have their speakers setup more on the side facing eachother with you in the middle...

Jeez, when does anyone actually listen to sound the way sound engineers do (from an equilateral triangle speaker setup) except for when mixing a CD?!?! it seems like most consumers listen with speakers that are parallel to eachother.

loujudson · 22nd February 2008, 07:02 PM

Simple. So they point at your ears.

Casual listeners are not engineers, so they do it the way they are used to.

DarkEcho · 22nd February 2008, 07:29 PM

Yes, but ultimately, we are producing a CD for the casual listener who rarely has a decent audio setup. so I am asking if it would be smarter to listen to a mix the way it is mostly going to be heard, so that we can adjust more for the headphone frenzy (by having your monitors directly to the side of you, simulating headphones or a car audio setup) since barely anyone listens to a track on a speaker system like we do, in the 60* triangle, and most people listen via headphones or car audio.

loujudson · 22nd February 2008, 07:39 PM

Well, if "most people" listen to MP3s are you going to only listen and mix as MP3s? I don't THINK so!

Fine mastering engineers have expensiv and incredibly accurate speakers (like $6,000 to 50,000!) so they can hear more detail and have more control. Nobody (except over-rich fanatics) has those speakers at home, but the mastering people can make it work for any system.

A graphic designer will use a $4,000 monitor with calibrated accuracy to do their artwork, so anyone who picks up a book, magazine or postcard will see what the designer wants them to see.

If this concept is not clear to you, you are in the wrong business (and I do not mean that meanly!)

A $20 pair of radio shack computer speakers will not let you make the best recordings, to make an analogy..

Go ahead and put them wherever you want and let your listeners clients and musicians judge your results. You will find these procedures and guidelines have goood reason to exist - through trial and error, and experience. Someone's email sig says, Learn from others' mistakes - there is not time to make them all yourself! - good advice.

Hope this helps your understanding.

Old Cane · 22nd February 2008, 07:51 PM

"psychoacoustics"

I think I'll name my next band that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DarkEcho

Yes, but ultimately, we are producing a CD for the casual listener who rarely has a decent audio setup. so I am asking if it would be smarter to listen to a mix the way it is mostly going to be heard, so that we can adjust more for the headphone frenzy (by having your monitors directly to the side of you, simulating headphones or a car audio setup) since barely anyone listens to a track on a speaker system like we do, in the 60* triangle, and most people listen via headphones or car audio.

Does that mean your music is substandard? That's like saying "my paintings could only be appreciated by people who have no taste for art". Music is art.....generally anyway. Some is just bad art. You can listen to mixes any way you want but if only in a car or headphones you may have Tipper Gore wanting to label your music as "not suitable for quality stereos". With all the high end and midrange stuff people are now buying for home theater, saying it will only be head on iPods is hopefully naive. If you limit your customer base you are, well, limiting your customer base. That's never good for the bottom line. Just because it's art it doesn't mean you can't sell it.

manthe · 22nd February 2008, 07:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ethan Winer

I'm not a big fan of DSP room "correction" because it doesn't really correct much. But I suppose you could try it.

--Ethan

Most times just a little is all it takes. I really think it depends on the room and how the test was run. From there, a lot of A/B work in the room and with mixes will tell you if there is a benefit. In my case, there was NOT a benefit at first. I did it by their book (JBL's). But, then I applied some common sense to my setups and testing methods, reran my RMCs and NOW my results are a great benefit to my mixes. I think the main problem with RMC is that people rely on it to work out of the box and as described. Like audio and mixing, there are too many variables for that. It just took me some time and patience to work it out. Now, I would hate to not have my curve applied to my LSR4328s...it would throw me off something fierce. Yes, my room is well treated...about as well as I can at this point. I just had to face the reality that my environment is not optimal for mixing and move on from there.

manthe · 22nd February 2008, 07:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DarkEcho

Ethan, I understand you point.. I have just requested a few books (including the one jamsmith suggested, thank you!) about psychoacoustics. I want to understand more about why headphone mixing is different from nearfield mixing as far as the stereo image and the angles of the audio reaching your ears.

Maybe it would be smart to mix mostly on headphones, as that is what most people will be listening to your mix on... that or in the car, right?

Even cars have their speakers setup more on the side facing eachother with you in the middle...

Jeez, when does anyone actually listen to sound the way sound engineers do (from an equilateral triangle speaker setup) except for when mixing a CD?!?! it seems like most consumers listen with speakers that are parallel to eachother.

I wonder if the 'traditional' mixing and mastering setup is not the best 'compromise' for balancing all of the ways people *might* listen to program material...I don't think it is safe to assume that most people will listen to something one way or another. So, to bridge the gap between cards, headphones, home stereo systems, home theater systems, portable listening devices with speakers, computer speakers, laptop speakers, etc, etc....maybe the triangle is the best way to account for all of that...?

EricF · 22nd February 2008, 08:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DarkEcho

Ethan, I understand you point.. I have just requested a few books (including the one jamsmith suggested, thank you!) about psychoacoustics. I want to understand more about why headphone mixing is different from nearfield mixing as far as the stereo image and the angles of the audio reaching your ears.

Maybe it would be smart to mix mostly on headphones, as that is what most people will be listening to your mix on... that or in the car, right?

Even cars have their speakers setup more on the side facing eachother with you in the middle...

Jeez, when does anyone actually listen to sound the way sound engineers do (from an equilateral triangle speaker setup) except for when mixing a CD?!?! it seems like most consumers listen with speakers that are parallel to eachother.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DarkEcho

Yes, but ultimately, we are producing a CD for the casual listener who rarely has a decent audio setup. so I am asking if it would be smarter to listen to a mix the way it is mostly going to be heard, so that we can adjust more for the headphone frenzy (by having your monitors directly to the side of you, simulating headphones or a car audio setup) since barely anyone listens to a track on a speaker system like we do, in the 60* triangle, and most people listen via headphones or car audio.

The idea is to produce a mix that translates to ALL listening enviroments - car, headphones, crappy comupter speakers, boom-box, big-$$$ audiophile system, etc. The better we can accurately hear what we're doing, the better the final product will translate. If you mix for one enviroment, it will likely sound good ONLY in that environment.

DarkEcho · 22nd February 2008, 08:51 PM

EricF:I understand the idea is to translate. But as you said, if you mix in one environment, it will likely only sound good in that environment.

But does the triangle really translate 100% best to ALL environments? Maybe it only sounds 80% good on headphones because we are trying to make it sound good also on big$$$ audio systems. Well, if we can stop worrying about big$$$ audio systems and get the sound to be 90% good in headphones, we should do it, because how many people listen in the big$$$ systems compared to on headphones?

Well mixing the way most of us do is only one environment out of many possible ones..

Is this environment the best as far as translating to car stereo and headphone environments? Those, I would argue, as easily the most used.

loujudson: aside from the idea behind translation, If absolutely everyone listened to music as MP3, then you bet we'd all be adding a peice of gear to our mixing chain to let us mix while emulating what it would sound like as MP3. You are be best off listening to your track in the format the listener is going to because maybe you can use different techniques to offset some of the bad sideeffects of the conversion. (Of course this isnt the case, due to the huge variety of formats audio is used in). Perhaps a lot of these things we do are old habits that need to be updated for the times.

Old Cane: I am not sure what your point is. Of couse my music is art and I feel very strongly about that. I can't tell if you are attempting to insinuate something negative about my music here.. Production of music is very much business oriented and we turn it into a product. if we mixed every CD purely for 5.1 surround systems, Then we would be limiting our customer base. However, most people will hear your product through headphones or a car stereo, and thus, it might be worth considering spending more effort making it sound good in headphones, even if it means not sounding as good through a 5.1 or quality stereo system.

I am not stating how things should be, but simply, that there might be a better way given how people hear music these days.

manthe: I think you are on the same track as me. Maybe the triangle IS the best, but I think it would be smarter for us to find out for sure somehow. I can tell you from observations that I never listen to my purchased music through a setup even slightly resembling my mixing setup. Its through the car mostly, or headphones. And judging by the amount of white-wired earbuds I see on campus every day, I thinks its fairly safe to assume that most people listen to music on less than desirable systems.

It's all in the demographic. In business, you have to make your product for a specific group. Why continue to mix the traditional way, if it no longer serves to translate accurately to how 50%+ people are going to be listening to it if another method works better for what is happening right now and in the future.

I also acknowledge that I could be totally off my pills right now and missing something important "psychoacoustically" about the traditional monitor setup. Maybe it is the best way to translate to most systems, and translates without sacrifice to headphones and car stereos.

But how can we find out for sure?

Old Cane · 22nd February 2008, 09:13 PM

My main point is, ok, you put your speakers on each side and mix your album. I listen to or over my "old fashioned" system, you know, with the speakers where they are supposed to go. Let's say for sake of argument, I like your music but can't stand the recording. That means I'm done....stop right there. I can stand noise in recording, bad tones on live stuff etc to hear a great performanmce. But I won't attempt to listen to something that is just freaky. ANd it may turn out fine. It's just....we know what works. That's why it's done that way.

What several of us are saying is that the idea is to make it translate across ALL playback systems. Mastering Engineers have this down to a science (literally). One setup for them will make the end result play equally well on my midrange hi-fi system, your headphones, Jim Bob's pickup stereo, my grand-daughters iPod and my grand-sons boom box. Most mix engineers will use a high-end set of speakers, a cheap set, a small set, take it to the car, listen on headphones, etc. Sure, you can just use headphones and it MIGHT work. I have $300 headphones so how do yours compare to mine? Are yours as good? Better? The idea is to make things acceptable for everyone.

MEs can make it work. Most are just invaluable to get a retail ready product. That's a different subject but if you want to change the world, give it a shot. With music, things are done the way they are done mostly because it works. Trial and error for the last 100 years. T&E is probably more prevelant in the music industry than any other. Electricians probably don't expreiment against the rules too much. That can kill. In making music, experimentation, about the worst that can happen is you make someone run screaming from the room.

What I'm saying is; if you want to mix on an iPod, go for it. If you want to set your speakers up on each side of you, go for it. If you want to mix on headphones, go for it. You asked why things were done a certain way. I guess I should have just said they are done that way because that's how it works. Speakers were made to set in front of us. They just were. Is that like saying "because I said so" to kids? Sometimes it just IS.

DarkEcho · 22nd February 2008, 09:22 PM

I understand. here is how I see it...

you've got to make it sound good one all these different systems...

its like you are in the middle with bungi cords tying you down to headphones, car stereo, audiophile system, computer speakers, etc.

you have to compromise in each of theses systems to benefit another system.

maybe unhooking yourself from the audiophile system and others that aren't as common sources of people listening will allow you to focus on making it sound better in the sources that most of the population uses?

I like to poke at tradition, because as a new mind in this very interesting world of music and audio, I don't usually like to just do the status quo.. I always want to test it and make sure its still solid for modern use.

I am only questioning the legitimacy of the triangle setup in its ability to really translate the best to the systems that matter most in the current period of time.

maybe a side-to-side system would sound better in car stereos and headphones, in which case, I would jump all over it, because that's how the majority of people are hearing it.

It would REALLY be nice for someone to throw some crazy physics formula at me showing me that there is no better way than the triangle, in which case I would actually be relieved that I can stop worrying about one part of the puzzle!!

Old Cane · 22nd February 2008, 09:32 PM

you have to compromise in each of theses systems to benefit another system

this is what you need to focus on. ANd where you said 80% above, it may be more like 99%. Yes, there has to be compromise. MEs, if used, are generally very very very good at this. I can listen on my $10,000 system, you can listen in your Bentley and we will both be extremely happy. Then, I can play play it my pickup and be as pleased as at home. These guys are very good. Did I say that? So, if you don't use an ME it's up to you to accomplish that and unless the idea of side speakers catches on it will probably be easiest to stick with tradition.

DarkEcho · 22nd February 2008, 09:34 PM

Do you think that inherently a good translatable mix will sound the same on headphones as a mix made specifically for headphones?

Old Cane · 22nd February 2008, 09:42 PM

I think it would depend on if we have the same headphones. They can be as different as speakers if not more so. I really don't know. Since, in art, there are no wrong answers all I know is to try and see what happens.

manthe · 22nd February 2008, 10:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Old Cane

I think it would depend on if we have the same headphones. They can be as different as speakers if not more so. I really don't know. Since, in art, there are no wrong answers all I know is to try and see what happens.

Great point! In my studio I have 4 different types of cans. They range from $300 to $50. There is a VAST difference in all of them.Not just in quality, but translation.

peeder · 22nd February 2008, 10:52 PM

We have a standard setup and it's not an arbitrary one...it takes advantage of the HRTF to set up a stereo image that is three-dimensional (including up and down) using phase interactions. You want your speakers in phase, on axis, and at the right angle because if they are too widely separated you will have poor imaging and center depression and too narrow also poor imaging and center buildup.

Headphones do not image (although there are tricks that I don't recommend), don't have HRTF (no, not even Ultrasones), don't have phase interaction, and are worthless for mixing other than to check low frequency response and for undesired noises etc.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
500 series...from a slightly different angle	jomo1234	New product alert!	11	9th March 2008 11:44 PM
Here's a new business angle	samwinston123	So much gear, so little time!	2	2nd November 2007 03:45 AM
Can I use rack gear 30-60 degree angle ?	trance54	High end	4	8th September 2004 07:29 AM
Cutting tape, what angle?	Jay Kahrs	High end	13	13th May 2003 02:48 AM
Stereo monitoring, angle and width?	FOURTHTUNZ	High end	4	20th April 2003 03:53 PM

21st February 2008, 06:59 PM	#1
DarkEcho Lives for gear Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: California Posts: 1,666	Why angle nearfield monitors? What is the theory behind angling nearfields versus having them on the same parallel plane? __________________ //Hawk Duncan..."Will Mix for Food"... [2.4Ghz MacBook Pro: 4GB RAM, 160GB 7200RPM Hard Drive] [Logic Pro 8, Apogee Ensemble, SCA Preamplifiers]

21st February 2008, 09:01 PM	#3
DarkEcho Lives for gear Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: California Posts: 1,666	I see. So why not then have the speakers facing eachother with your head directly in the middle so that each speaker cone is firing directly into its' respective ear's canal? Wouldn't this further improve the perceived on axis response because its not coming in to your ear at an angle? Setup your nearfields almost like distanced headphones? __________________ //Hawk Duncan..."Will Mix for Food"... [2.4Ghz MacBook Pro: 4GB RAM, 160GB 7200RPM Hard Drive] [Logic Pro 8, Apogee Ensemble, SCA Preamplifiers]

21st February 2008, 09:08 PM	#4
Old Cane Gear addict Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Murfreesboro, TN Posts: 460	I tried that when I was a kid. I'm sure Ethan has a better answer but in short, without getting into soundstage, imaging and so on, it didn't sound like I was in the middle of the band. It sounded like I was in the middle of a shooting gallery. I think the technical term is "crap". __________________ Boogie 'til you puke. http://www.soundclick.com/bands/defa...?bandID=725307

22nd February 2008, 07:00 PM	#10
DarkEcho Lives for gear Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: California Posts: 1,666	Ethan, I understand you point.. I have just requested a few books (including the one jamsmith suggested, thank you!) about psychoacoustics. I want to understand more about why headphone mixing is different from nearfield mixing as far as the stereo image and the angles of the audio reaching your ears. Maybe it would be smart to mix mostly on headphones, as that is what most people will be listening to your mix on... that or in the car, right? Even cars have their speakers setup more on the side facing eachother with you in the middle... Jeez, when does anyone actually listen to sound the way sound engineers do (from an equilateral triangle speaker setup) except for when mixing a CD?!?! it seems like most consumers listen with speakers that are parallel to eachother. __________________ //Hawk Duncan..."Will Mix for Food"... [2.4Ghz MacBook Pro: 4GB RAM, 160GB 7200RPM Hard Drive] [Logic Pro 8, Apogee Ensemble, SCA Preamplifiers]

22nd February 2008, 07:02 PM	#11
loujudson Lives for gear Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 1,000	Simple. So they point at your ears. Casual listeners are not engineers, so they do it the way they are used to.

22nd February 2008, 07:29 PM	#12
DarkEcho Lives for gear Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: California Posts: 1,666	Yes, but ultimately, we are producing a CD for the casual listener who rarely has a decent audio setup. so I am asking if it would be smarter to listen to a mix the way it is mostly going to be heard, so that we can adjust more for the headphone frenzy (by having your monitors directly to the side of you, simulating headphones or a car audio setup) since barely anyone listens to a track on a speaker system like we do, in the 60* triangle, and most people listen via headphones or car audio. __________________ //Hawk Duncan..."Will Mix for Food"... [2.4Ghz MacBook Pro: 4GB RAM, 160GB 7200RPM Hard Drive] [Logic Pro 8, Apogee Ensemble, SCA Preamplifiers]

22nd February 2008, 07:39 PM	#13
loujudson Lives for gear Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 1,000	Well, if "most people" listen to MP3s are you going to only listen and mix as MP3s? I don't THINK so! Fine mastering engineers have expensiv and incredibly accurate speakers (like $6,000 to 50,000!) so they can hear more detail and have more control. Nobody (except over-rich fanatics) has those speakers at home, but the mastering people can make it work for any system. A graphic designer will use a $4,000 monitor with calibrated accuracy to do their artwork, so anyone who picks up a book, magazine or postcard will see what the designer wants them to see. If this concept is not clear to you, you are in the wrong business (and I do not mean that meanly!) A $20 pair of radio shack computer speakers will not let you make the best recordings, to make an analogy.. Go ahead and put them wherever you want and let your listeners clients and musicians judge your results. You will find these procedures and guidelines have goood reason to exist - through trial and error, and experience. Someone's email sig says, Learn from others' mistakes - there is not time to make them all yourself! - good advice. Hope this helps your understanding.

22nd February 2008, 08:51 PM	#18
DarkEcho Lives for gear Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: California Posts: 1,666	EricF:I understand the idea is to translate. But as you said, if you mix in one environment, it will likely only sound good in that environment. But does the triangle really translate 100% best to ALL environments? Maybe it only sounds 80% good on headphones because we are trying to make it sound good also on big$$$ audio systems. Well, if we can stop worrying about big$$$ audio systems and get the sound to be 90% good in headphones, we should do it, because how many people listen in the big$$$ systems compared to on headphones? Well mixing the way most of us do is only one environment out of many possible ones.. Is this environment the best as far as translating to car stereo and headphone environments? Those, I would argue, as easily the most used. loujudson: aside from the idea behind translation, If absolutely everyone listened to music as MP3, then you bet we'd all be adding a peice of gear to our mixing chain to let us mix while emulating what it would sound like as MP3. You are be best off listening to your track in the format the listener is going to because maybe you can use different techniques to offset some of the bad sideeffects of the conversion. (Of course this isnt the case, due to the huge variety of formats audio is used in). Perhaps a lot of these things we do are old habits that need to be updated for the times. Old Cane: I am not sure what your point is. Of couse my music is art and I feel very strongly about that. I can't tell if you are attempting to insinuate something negative about my music here.. Production of music is very much business oriented and we turn it into a product. if we mixed every CD purely for 5.1 surround systems, Then we would be limiting our customer base. However, most people will hear your product through headphones or a car stereo, and thus, it might be worth considering spending more effort making it sound good in headphones, even if it means not sounding as good through a 5.1 or quality stereo system. I am not stating how things should be, but simply, that there might be a better way given how people hear music these days. manthe: I think you are on the same track as me. Maybe the triangle IS the best, but I think it would be smarter for us to find out for sure somehow. I can tell you from observations that I never listen to my purchased music through a setup even slightly resembling my mixing setup. Its through the car mostly, or headphones. And judging by the amount of white-wired earbuds I see on campus every day, I thinks its fairly safe to assume that most people listen to music on less than desirable systems. It's all in the demographic. In business, you have to make your product for a specific group. Why continue to mix the traditional way, if it no longer serves to translate accurately to how 50%+ people are going to be listening to it if another method works better for what is happening right now and in the future. I also acknowledge that I could be totally off my pills right now and missing something important "psychoacoustically" about the traditional monitor setup. Maybe it is the best way to translate to most systems, and translates without sacrifice to headphones and car stereos. But how can we find out for sure? __________________ //Hawk Duncan..."Will Mix for Food"... [2.4Ghz MacBook Pro: 4GB RAM, 160GB 7200RPM Hard Drive] [Logic Pro 8, Apogee Ensemble, SCA Preamplifiers]

22nd February 2008, 09:13 PM	#19
Old Cane Gear addict Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Murfreesboro, TN Posts: 460	My main point is, ok, you put your speakers on each side and mix your album. I listen to or over my "old fashioned" system, you know, with the speakers where they are supposed to go. Let's say for sake of argument, I like your music but can't stand the recording. That means I'm done....stop right there. I can stand noise in recording, bad tones on live stuff etc to hear a great performanmce. But I won't attempt to listen to something that is just freaky. ANd it may turn out fine. It's just....we know what works. That's why it's done that way. What several of us are saying is that the idea is to make it translate across ALL playback systems. Mastering Engineers have this down to a science (literally). One setup for them will make the end result play equally well on my midrange hi-fi system, your headphones, Jim Bob's pickup stereo, my grand-daughters iPod and my grand-sons boom box. Most mix engineers will use a high-end set of speakers, a cheap set, a small set, take it to the car, listen on headphones, etc. Sure, you can just use headphones and it MIGHT work. I have $300 headphones so how do yours compare to mine? Are yours as good? Better? The idea is to make things acceptable for everyone. MEs can make it work. Most are just invaluable to get a retail ready product. That's a different subject but if you want to change the world, give it a shot. With music, things are done the way they are done mostly because it works. Trial and error for the last 100 years. T&E is probably more prevelant in the music industry than any other. Electricians probably don't expreiment against the rules too much. That can kill. In making music, experimentation, about the worst that can happen is you make someone run screaming from the room. What I'm saying is; if you want to mix on an iPod, go for it. If you want to set your speakers up on each side of you, go for it. If you want to mix on headphones, go for it. You asked why things were done a certain way. I guess I should have just said they are done that way because that's how it works. Speakers were made to set in front of us. They just were. Is that like saying "because I said so" to kids? Sometimes it just IS. __________________ Boogie 'til you puke. http://www.soundclick.com/bands/defa...?bandID=725307

22nd February 2008, 09:22 PM	#20
DarkEcho Lives for gear Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: California Posts: 1,666	I understand. here is how I see it... you've got to make it sound good one all these different systems... its like you are in the middle with bungi cords tying you down to headphones, car stereo, audiophile system, computer speakers, etc. you have to compromise in each of theses systems to benefit another system. maybe unhooking yourself from the audiophile system and others that aren't as common sources of people listening will allow you to focus on making it sound better in the sources that most of the population uses? I like to poke at tradition, because as a new mind in this very interesting world of music and audio, I don't usually like to just do the status quo.. I always want to test it and make sure its still solid for modern use. I am only questioning the legitimacy of the triangle setup in its ability to really translate the best to the systems that matter most in the current period of time. maybe a side-to-side system would sound better in car stereos and headphones, in which case, I would jump all over it, because that's how the majority of people are hearing it. It would REALLY be nice for someone to throw some crazy physics formula at me showing me that there is no better way than the triangle, in which case I would actually be relieved that I can stop worrying about one part of the puzzle!! __________________ //Hawk Duncan..."Will Mix for Food"... [2.4Ghz MacBook Pro: 4GB RAM, 160GB 7200RPM Hard Drive] [Logic Pro 8, Apogee Ensemble, SCA Preamplifiers]

22nd February 2008, 09:32 PM	#21
Old Cane Gear addict Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Murfreesboro, TN Posts: 460	you have to compromise in each of theses systems to benefit another system this is what you need to focus on. ANd where you said 80% above, it may be more like 99%. Yes, there has to be compromise. MEs, if used, are generally very very very good at this. I can listen on my $10,000 system, you can listen in your Bentley and we will both be extremely happy. Then, I can play play it my pickup and be as pleased as at home. These guys are very good. Did I say that? So, if you don't use an ME it's up to you to accomplish that and unless the idea of side speakers catches on it will probably be easiest to stick with tradition. __________________ Boogie 'til you puke. http://www.soundclick.com/bands/defa...?bandID=725307

22nd February 2008, 09:34 PM	#22
DarkEcho Lives for gear Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: California Posts: 1,666	Do you think that inherently a good translatable mix will sound the same on headphones as a mix made specifically for headphones? __________________ //Hawk Duncan..."Will Mix for Food"... [2.4Ghz MacBook Pro: 4GB RAM, 160GB 7200RPM Hard Drive] [Logic Pro 8, Apogee Ensemble, SCA Preamplifiers]

22nd February 2008, 09:42 PM	#23
Old Cane Gear addict Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Murfreesboro, TN Posts: 460	I think it would depend on if we have the same headphones. They can be as different as speakers if not more so. I really don't know. Since, in art, there are no wrong answers all I know is to try and see what happens. __________________ Boogie 'til you puke. http://www.soundclick.com/bands/defa...?bandID=725307

22nd February 2008, 10:52 PM	#25
peeder Lives for gear Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: No longer participating here. Posts: 6,742	We have a standard setup and it's not an arbitrary one...it takes advantage of the HRTF to set up a stereo image that is three-dimensional (including up and down) using phase interactions. You want your speakers in phase, on axis, and at the right angle because if they are too widely separated you will have poor imaging and center depression and too narrow also poor imaging and center buildup. Headphones do not image (although there are tricks that I don't recommend), don't have HRTF (no, not even Ultrasones), don't have phase interaction, and are worthless for mixing other than to check low frequency response and for undesired noises etc.