How do you deal with the fact that...

[Neon Heart]

nowadays most consumers listen to music on their desktop?

Music downloads dramatically increase, less consumers buy it on a physical medium and listen via their Hifi.

Apart from the fact that mixes should sound good on different speakers etc. I'm more and more concerned how it comes across through crappy standard internal pc soundbards as consumers don't have expensive audioboards.

how do you deal with the fact that the same mix that sounds lovely through the Hifi is a completely different thing via standard soundcards (Realtek etc.)?

do you care at all about this situation or do you even make compromises?

Hell, I start thinking that the only solution could be offering different mixes for internet downloads compared to cds.

How are you dealing with this?

[Mike Brown]

Great mixes will sound good on anything. Check your mixes on a boombox, a car, and your laptop and you will be fine.

[Neon Heart]

I do agree that they still can sound good but there's definately a big loss that could be avoided.

[mu6gr8]

I make the music (composition, arrangement & performance) as good as it can be, regardless of the storage or delivery media. Then I make the mix sound great for people who actually care about sonics, i.e. those who went to the trouble of investing in great hi-fi systems.

I don't like the idea of short-changing audiophiles due to other folks' lower standards; I'd rather reward them. If listeners with lower quality playback systems care about the sound quality, they can upgrade to a better set of earbuds, headphones or external computer speakers.

A great mix of great music will translate well to the widest range of listening environments. Don't dumb it down for laptops and iPods.

[Mr.HOLMES]

Originally Posted by Neon Heart

I do agree that they still can sound good but there's definately a big loss that could be avoided.

I do not get your point If you have good mix not excellent just good as the most of my mixes and your mastering house is knowing their business you will have file that translates good on any system.

I always try to check on three different systems.

Mixing on Genelec 8040
-
Checking JBL CONTROL ONE.
Checking Logitec Consumer Computer Speaker.
Checking Laptop.
Car of my wife with Subwoofer.

If you stay consequent with this you can learn a lot and help that the mastering will have not a lot of work with it.

Also doing this teaches me that my room is having a slight underexposure at 100 HZ what my mastering house verified and my acoustic measurement later too.
Working this way you can learn which problems you room is still having and mix around them.

[Neon Heart]

thanks for the replies,

yes maybe I did not make my point clear enough.

if you (and I'm sure all of you have done this loads of times) compare your favourite record (avoiding the term "mix" now) by yourself or by anyone else 1st via Hifi and 2nd via an internal crappy pc soundcard (that probably most of you didn't bother to use for years -because you, in contrast to the common consumer, have got better options) through the same speakers you will find that the record sounds much muddier and has got less of low and high end and loss of clarity in the latter. this will happen with any record unless this special record has been, let's now say "mastered" and not "mixed" especially for this device.
In other words, a record that is dedicated to be listened to on a usual pc system -so mostly downloadable mp3s (which are many these days...)- would and could be mastered differently in order to reach a better end and more approriate result for the common pc user.

btw Grüße nach Berlin Mr. Holmes

EDIT: so not even to consider room accoustics which of course have big impact on the sound. but you don't know everyones bedroom...

[zboy2854]

Originally Posted by Neon Heart

thanks for the replies,

yes maybe I did not make my point clear enough.

if you (and I'm sure all of you have done this loads of times) compare your favourite record (avoiding the term "mix" now) by yourself or by anyone else 1st via Hifi and 2nd via an internal crappy pc soundcard (that probably most of you didn't bother to use for years -because you, in contrast to the common consumer, have got better options) through the same speakers you will find that the record sounds much muddier and has got less of low and high end and loss of clarity in the latter. this will happen with any record unless this special record has been, let's now say "mastered" and not "mixed" especially for this device.
In other words, a record that is dedicated to be listened to on a usual pc system -so mostly downloadable mp3s (which are many these days...)- would and could be mastered differently in order to reach a better end and more approriate result for the common pc user.

btw Grüße nach Berlin Mr. Holmes

EDIT: so not even to consider room accoustics which of course have big impact on the sound. but you don't know everyones bedroom...

The question is, what would you even do differently for the purposes of computer speakers? After all computer speakers by default have limited frequency ranges, so how exactly would one tailor a mix differently for that specific end use? And who would want to purchase a track that only sounds good on one set of speakers, but is all sorts of out of whack when listened on other types of systems?

And for the record, even when listening to stuff on my laptop speakers, I can instantly tell a great mix from a crappy one, not because the great mix was tailored or mastered specifically for computer speakers, but because it's simply a great mix. If your mix is great and translates well from system to system, you don't need to tailor anything, it takes care of itself.

The bottom line is that this is no different than it has ever been in the music business. We as engineers have NEVER had control over how our work is listened to. Back in the '80s people were listening to cassettes on Walkmen with crappy headphones. Today people listen in their cars, on computer speakers, or on iPods (with crappy headphones). Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

Honestly, it's much ado about nothing. Make the best sounding product you can, make sure it can translate well on as many different systems as possible. End of story.

[Mr.HOLMES]

The point is not that it must sound the same on every system (this is not possible during physics) it must translate good ...the idea with the consumer speaker came late to me. it was a mastering engineer here at GS who asked me this.

So translation means to me.
For sure I hear more base on my genelecs.
But if I switch to the Logitecs I have still to hear the base if it sticks out I have to correct something in my mix. So I try to find the biggest average for good sound in different environments.

Thats all what you have to do.
In the beginning it was strange but it was the best advise by a mastering engineer what I ever got.

[Neon Heart]

Originally Posted by zboy2854

The question is, what would you even do differently for the purposes of computer speakers? After all computer speakers by default have limited frequency ranges, so how exactly would one tailor a mix differently for that specific end use? And who would want to purchase a track that only sounds good on one set of speakers, but is all sorts of out of whack when listened on other types of systems?

And for the record, even when listening to stuff on my laptop speakers, I can instantly tell a great mix from a crappy one, not because the great mix was tailored or mastered specifically for computer speakers, but because it's simply a great mix. If your mix is great and translates well from system to system, you don't need to tailor anything, it takes care of itself.

The bottom line is that this is no different than it has ever been in the music business. We as engineers have NEVER had control over how our work is listened to. Back in the '80s people were listening to cassettes on Walkmen with crappy headphones. Today people listen in their cars, on computer speakers, or on iPods (with crappy headphones). Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

Honestly, it's much ado about nothing. Make the best sounding product you can, make sure it can translate well on as many different systems as possible. End of story.

I can see your point.
however, as music sales trend goes to internet downloads, also the listening manner changes. Sadly- soon enough most music will be mp3s consumed via the computer. And this is not about speaker systems as people nowadays tend to have their pc connected to the same system as their cd player.

as an extreme example: send a nice wellshaped kick drum through your system and then do it again to the same speakers in the same room using a standard -everybody-has- soundcard. It will sound completely different. I mean, of course its still a kick drum but it will make a lot of your efforts to make it sound the way you want meaningless.

the point is, if most consumers listen via this crappy setup (not talking about speakers) -and the trend dramatically points into this direction, why not have that already in mind when shaping the sound?
there are loads of possibilities to influence this. the most obvious would be simple but effective EQings by which you won't reach a better quality in sound but for sure a better balance and even clarity.

yes I know there are Equalizers for every standard soundcard with presets like "Rock" or "Classic" but seriously...

Easiest solution: good audioboards for everyone!

reason for this thread was: everybody is concerned about different speaker setups but what about the impact of bad audio codecs?

people are buying cds in order to have the package and copy the tracks to their computer's harddisk to listen to. that's how its going these days.
I know there are still people enjoying vinyls too but that's a minority.

[zboy2854]

Originally Posted by Neon Heart

as an extreme example: send a nice wellshaped kick drum through your system and then do it again to the same speakers in the same room using a standard -everybody-has- soundcard. It will sound completely different. I mean, of course its still a kick drum but it will make a lot of your efforts to make it sound the way you want meaningless.

Not at all. Again, listen to a crappy mix and a great mix through the same lousy soundcard, and the great mix will still shine. Listening through hifi converters or sound systems only makes the differences even more obvious, but they're obvious even on lesser systems nonetheless.

the point is, if most consumers listen via this crappy setup (not talking about speakers) -and the trend dramatically points into this direction, why not have that already in mind when shaping the sound?
there are loads of possibilities to influence this. the most obvious would be simple but effective EQings by which you won't reach a better quality in sound but for sure a better balance and even clarity.

This is a statement that has no meaning at all. What exactly would constitute "effective EQings"?? How in the world would you propose an engineer EQ for a specific soundcard or system when they have no idea what it's going to be? Talk about trying to hit a moving target.

The bottom line is that a well mixed and mastered recording already has the most effective "EQings" in terms of balance and clarity. Assuming there is any better way of EQing or balancing a mix for a specific kind of converters or sound system is a rookie mistake.

Easiest solution: good audioboards for everyone!

It never existed in the past, why should it exist now? Even back in the days of vinyl, the quality of people's turntables, preamps, power amps and speakers varied wildly in terms of quality. The same happened with cassette decks. And what about the lousy electronics and power amp in a Sony cassette Walkman? Or an iPod? Or a stock car stereo versus a Pioneer head and speakers? And now soundcards. It's all the same. The quality of the playback apparatus that the general public listens to music has ALWAYS varied wildly. Today is no different whatsoever. And the answer for engineers today is the same as it was 30 years ago--don't worry about how people are listening to your material, because it's going to vary, and technology will continue to change. Just do the best work you can and make sure it translates as well as possible on the widest range of systems.

reason for this thread was: everybody is concerned about different speaker setups but what about the impact of bad audio codecs?

people are buying cds in order to have the package and copy the tracks to their computer's harddisk to listen to. that's how its going these days.

Yes, that's how it's going these days, but what happens when the systems and way people listen to music changes again in another 10 years? If engineers were to tailor their mixes for crappy soundcards today (and I'm still not sure what exactly you would change), it would only guarantee that the music would be unlistenable or dated as hell 10 or 20 years from now when the method of listening changes again.

Consumer playback and listening methods and systems come and go, history has shown us that time and time again. The one constant is the music. Make it sound right no matter how it's played back, and you'll be fine.

[zakco]

Originally Posted by zboy2854

Honestly, it's much ado about nothing. Make the best sounding product you can, make sure it can translate well on as many different systems as possible. End of story.

Yep.

[Tony Shepperd]

Originally Posted by zboy2854

Honestly, it's much ado about nothing. Make the best sounding product you can, make sure it can translate well on as many different systems as possible. End of story.

I agree with Zboy!

And I would add this:
Don't start mixing for the lowest common denominator.
Make it the best it can be and it will translate well on almost anything.