Is it really so great to mix on accurate monitors?

[StringBean]

I ask this because when i listen to a mix in my car or on laptop speakers, all the attention to detail gets lost. So why bother? In a way I think if I mixed solely to make it sound good in the car then it would sound better on lo-fi systems and I would finally realize that any and all things i put in the low-mids are completely
superfluous

[AcoosticZoo]

Yes, One aspect of a great mix is the proper translation of mixes into lesser playback systems/environments such as in the Car/Computer Speakers or Ipod headphones.

However, for sheer listening pleasure, mixes need to also cater for hi-end full range systems as well. A professional mix translates through all types of situations and playback systems.

The importance of a reliable accurate monitoring system is to ensure you're not flying blind, missing out things due to sub-par playback systems.

Regards
Josef Horhay
Mixing Engineer
www.acoosticzoo.com

[jonathan jetter]

that's one way to look at it, sure.

you can view your work either as craft or as art.

if it's craft, that's fine. and if you can get paid well without accurate monitors, that's fine. and if you don't feel the need to hear detail, that's fine too. and if you don't think that more expensive monitors would help you make more money, then don't get them.

but, if you view this as art, then it stops being relevant about how things sound on someone's crappy car stereo with the subs turned up +20db. and then you do care about detail.

when i'm working on a good project....i know which way i'd prefer to think. can't speak for anyone else though.

[Kiwi]

Should women look in the mirror when they apply make up? If they only going to be seen from a distance, why not just dab on some lippy while watching their reflection in a shop window ...

Attention to detail matters to some people. There are hifi listeners who can hear you music in extremely good detail. I use a Benchmark Dac1 and I was amazed at the detail I was missing before. The Dac1 is sold as a consumer hifi device ..

[nedorama]

Because not everyone is listening to music on shitty car or laptop speakers.

It's also why a lot of people monitor through multiple speakers, burn a CD to play in their car, etc. Better speakers let you know what the mix really sounds like so that it translates well on high end, medium, and shitty car and laptop speakers.

[Rob Coates]

My problem is my mixes sound great in the control room and then I play them in the car and...mud. Or, the mix might sound good from the studio monitors and in the car and then I play the mix thru computer speakers and...mud. I'm constantly going back and forth to various consumer type devices to tweak everything to sound good on all of these. I've got an irregular shaped control room with vaulted ceiling and tons of bass trapping. Maybe I'm absorbing too much bass or my monitors are no good (Alesis passive) or maybe my ears just aren't the best. Wish I knew exactly what's going on so I could just make it sound good in front of the monitors and be confident it will sound good everywhere. I wonder if getting NS10s would reveal the mud that I can't hear from my current monitors.

[Timothy Lawler]

I recognize that most people who listen to my recordings do it on a lo-fi system.... computer speakers, ear buds, etc., and I'm OK with that. But what really motivates me is that some do listen on high fidelity systems, whatever small percentage they are. It's like a hidden art, which in a way makes it all the better knowing that only people who care to look closely can see all that's there.

[camus]

A set of accurate monitors translates well everywhere else, that's the point. If you mix in your car it will sound like ass in somebody else's. If you mix on your laptop speakers it will sound like ass in the car. And so on and so forth.

[StringBean]

I agree that you should use accurate monitors, but I also think on some level composing with a lot of detail can get you a great studio mix that doesn't sound effective in the car where detail becomes mud. I guess finding the middle ground is the key and I might even argue that the middle ground is why music sounds so similar today.

[Karloff70]

Originally Posted by StringBean

I agree that you should use accurate monitors, but I also think on some level composing with a lot of detail can get you a great studio mix that doesn't sound effective in the car where detail becomes mud. I guess finding the middle ground is the key and I might even argue that the middle ground is why music sounds so similar today.

It's not to do with any 'middle ground'. The parameters that make it work in the car and the ones relating to details you don't hear in the car are two sets of parameters. Independent of each other. You can get each right or wrong. A good mix would mean getting both right.

[RainbowStorm]

Originally Posted by StringBean

I ask this because when i listen to a mix in my car or on laptop speakers, all the attention to detail gets lost. So why bother? In a way I think if I mixed solely to make it sound good in the car then it would sound better on lo-fi systems and I would finally realize that any and all things i put in the low-mids are completely
superfluous

It is great because then you better understand the amount of customer satisfaction your product will result in.

[camus]

Originally Posted by StringBean

on some level composing with a lot of detail can get you a great studio mix that doesn't sound effective in the car where detail becomes mud

Then it's not a "great studio mix" is it. I can name tons of records that sound good coming out of a 2 inch speaker, and even better when you blast them in glorious hi-fidelity over a great system.

Wonder why Phil Spector, Brian Wilson and The Beatles slaved over getting 'new sounds' in the studio when most of their audience were listening to those cuts on crappy little record players or on AM radio in their cars...

[Apollo Soul]

Having actually tried mixes this and many other ways, I can say that if you only mix on, for instance, your computer speakers, the mix will sound great...

... but only on YOUR computer speakers.

I'm a big fan of checking the mix on different systems, but the most accurate set of monitors is always the sonic "home base."

[audiotech]

If you want your mixes to sound great on the majority of playback systems, then accurate monitors are a must. You must have some kind of accurate reference so your mixes becomes a common denominator when leaving your studio.

Dennis

[Rob Coates]

Originally Posted by camus

A set of accurate monitors translates well everywhere else, that's the point. If you mix in your car it will sound like ass in somebody else's. If you mix on your laptop speakers it will sound like ass in the car. And so on and so forth.

OK but what relatively inexpensive monitors are good at revealing mud that others don't? I've never used NS10s, but after researching and learning that they are very bass shy and have a 7db peak in the upper mids I'd say they are anything but accurate and the last thing I need. Possibly my Alesis passives are too much like the NS10s because I absolutely can not hear the mud that shows up on some other systems.

[Enlightened Hand]

Originally Posted by Rob Coates

My problem is my mixes sound great in the control room and then I play them in the car and...mud. Or, the mix might sound good from the studio monitors and in the car and then I play the mix thru computer speakers and...mud. I'm constantly going back and forth to various consumer type devices to tweak everything to sound good on all of these. I've got an irregular shaped control room with vaulted ceiling and tons of bass trapping. Maybe I'm absorbing too much bass or my monitors are no good (Alesis passive) or maybe my ears just aren't the best. Wish I knew exactly what's going on so I could just make it sound good in front of the monitors and be confident it will sound good everywhere. I wonder if getting NS10s would reveal the mud that I can't hear from my current monitors.

That experience is common. It's usually due to a combination of factors.
-the monitors and room aren't working quite well together
-the ears of the person at the controls haven't quite locked in on what "right" sounds like.

Neutral, detailed monitoring is desirable because there are so many different types of playback systems that people are using that it is impossible for any individual to audition and tweak a mix to sound optimal on all of them. So we compromise. Ironically our compromise comes by attempting to remove the monitors we use from the equation as much as possible. That's what you get from neutral, detailed monitors, well integrated into a neutral room. At best you hear mostly the material and very little of the speakers and room doing their thing to the material.

That means you still have to know how to get things to sit right and know what that sounds like when it's done. That also means that your stuff will likely never sound exactly how it's "supposed" to sound on every conceivable system. But it's okay, because when you're monitoring the material (and not the speakers and room) the decisions you make are in response to the material and so it's then okay to let the various playback systems of listeners everywhere do what they will, because you'll at least know that you haven't made mix decisions that serve to compound whatever problems they already have in their unique playback experience.

[camus]

Originally Posted by Rob Coates

OK but what relatively inexpensive monitors are good at revealing mud that others don't? I've never used NS10s, but after researching and learning that they are very bass shy and have a 7db peak in the upper mids I'd say they are anything but accurate and the last thing I need. Possibly my Alesis passives are too much like the NS10s because I absolutely can not hear the mud that shows up on some other systems.

Shop around and listen to as many speakers as you can. It'll beat any recommendations from strangers off the internet any day. FWIW, this one recommends you find a shop that demos B&W speakers and take a listen to the 600 series stuff.

[diggo]

It doesnt matter how accurate your monitors are if the room and overall system is not optimally configured. Aside from room issues, speakers are typically the most inaccurate part of the system. But the source of mix translation problems is not due to speakers alone. Far from it in fact. It's mostly due to two other factors:

1. Mixing on systems which are not full range.
2. Mixing in rooms which are not optimally treated.

The accuracy of most speakers available today is fine for mixing.

The real question should have been "Is it really so great to mix using an accurate system? (when "system" means "all devices and the room as a unit")

And the answer to that question = it's not essential. Many great mixes have been done using inaccurate systems. However, the risk that your mix will not translate well is increased if you use an inaccurate system.

Ultimately, anything which reduces the risk of a bad result is better than the alternative.

And this is the main reason why professional mastering engineers are employed. It reduces risk of failure - the quality control provided by a good mastering service is all about risk management.

There's a reason why the top mix engineers dont master their own work.....and it happens to be the same reason mastering businesses invest most of their capital on items 1 and 2 above: an accurate, full range system in an optimally treated room.

Risk management.

Sean

[Karloff70]

Originally Posted by Rob Coates

OK but what relatively inexpensive monitors are good at revealing mud that others don't? I've never used NS10s, but after researching and learning that they are very bass shy and have a 7db peak in the upper mids I'd say they are anything but accurate and the last thing I need. Possibly my Alesis passives are too much like the NS10s because I absolutely can not hear the mud that shows up on some other systems.

That upper mid peak combined with their fast transients is exactly why they let you unravel the mids very effectively (unlike the Alesis which sound like mud even when there is none...). It's not just about 'flat'. No speaker is entirely flat. Obviously some are very much more so than others, and NS-10's are about as unflat as it gets. But that doesn't make them a bad tool once you learn them. You won't find a better mid magnifying glass for the money.


If you really want to get rid of muddy LOW mids out of your monitoring, prepare to spend some cash not just on the monitors, but on the room, as a nice and neutral monitor with some bass extension will reliably get an untreated room to feel like you're sitting inside a resonating kickdrum.

[Howie J]

The one thing I notice when I'm working on my system and compare it to car/home/etc. systems is that I'm too shy about adjustments. Overall level, reverb levels, etc.

My space is far from "amazing"....I have a pair of JBL LSR 4328's with and average controlled room...(I know I have some mids/hi mid room modes that I deal with) but I will agonize over a small change in reverb level or relative volume and then listen in the car and it's like...."Did I even DO anything??" I go back and double/triple what I did and can finally hear it on everyday systems.

Just learning your environment and how it translates to the real world.

When my biz partner and I swap mixes/masters back and forth, we listen for the oversight of each other's rooms. He knows he has a bass issue...I have the mids issue. We both know almost the exact frequency, but when you get buried in a mix for hours....it's easy to forget.

Howie J

[Rob Coates]

Originally Posted by Karloff70

If you really want to get rid of muddy LOW mids out of your monitoring, prepare to spend some cash not just on the monitors, but on the room, as a nice and neutral monitor with some bass extension will reliably get an untreated room to feel like you're sitting inside a resonating kickdrum.

I don't have any low muddy mids in my monitoring. That's the problem. My speakers, room, treatment, whatever won't reveal the mud that is there (ie there's like a blank spot in the 150 to 300 hz range).

[theblue1]

Originally Posted by StringBean

I ask this because when i listen to a mix in my car or on laptop speakers, all the attention to detail gets lost. So why bother? In a way I think if I mixed solely to make it sound good in the car then it would sound better on lo-fi systems and I would finally realize that any and all things i put in the low-mids are completely
superfluous

I'm going to take the risk of repeating what others have said but here's my answer to your question:

The world of playback systems is all over the map. Some have massive bass, some almost none. Some have crystal clear treble, some are hyped and shrill, some don't have much high frequency response at all. Some systems will have a dipped mid-range, some will be near flat, others will roll off bass and treble.

You want an accurate, neutral speaker because A) it's really nice to actually be able to hear what you're working with and B) because the range of playback systems is so all over the map that having a 'neutral' starting place makes sense.

Now, does it also make sense to have alternate monitors for simulating low end table stereos or car stereos -- and maybe a pair of cheap earbuds, too? Yes. Those references will let you see how your mix will hold up on lesser systems.

[jasonwagner]

I use the analogy of painting compared to mixing. If you are trying to paint a color accurate picture but are wearing colored lens glasses you are going to have a very hard time making decisions about the paint you use since you are not seeing it correctly.

Paint = EQ, Compressors, etc.., you want clear glasses = accurate monitoring. Picture = mix.

You can "learn" your room but you are still guessing if the frequencies you are hearing are hyped or lacking. Educated guessing but still guessing compared to actually hearing it correctly.

When you have accurate, flat monitoring, making decisions becomes so much easier and quicker. Plus you are more confident about your choices which makes for a much better mixing experience which will translate into better mixes.

[mtstudios@charter]

Honestly, this has been going on for decades. How many stories have we heard that the first cutting of the lacquer master was a big disappointment to the Producer and or Engineer due to its inherent limitations. I am sure they heard detail on their half inch that was just gone, and as the album went into the inner grooves it got worse. This didn't stop them from spending hundreds of thousands of dollars and time trying to make the best sonic landscape they could possibly achieve. Bottom line is it translates better to the listener when the source is detailed, wide, tall and deep. You can hear a difference between good and bad on the worst of systems.

It also doesn't hurt to have another set of small speakers to hear how your mix is translating to the computer.


MT Studios

[Karloff70]

Originally Posted by jasonwagner

When you have accurate, flat monitoring, making decisions becomes so much easier and quicker. Plus you are more confident about your choices which makes for a much better mixing experience which will translate into better mixes.

Hmmm, only one could argue that detailed outranks flat, as lots of records mainly mixed on NS-10's attest. Why do you think CLA uses 10's with a sub? It isn't because he cannot afford flatter speakers......

[Karloff70]

Originally Posted by Rob Coates

I don't have any low muddy mids in my monitoring. That's the problem. My speakers, room, treatment, whatever won't reveal the mud that is there (ie there's like a blank spot in the 150 to 300 hz range).

Blank? I assume you mean a phase cancellation, where that area gets eaten away, resulting in a hole. Strange area....would have thought the big up and downs would be a little lower. Either way, those Alesis speakers are not helping.

[StringBean]

Just to piss everyone off I realized last night that my car's "fade" setting was set real forward (so all the low end from the back of the car was missing) and the treble was turned down a lot. LOL

[rogerbrain]

Y.E.S.

[steveschizoid]

Originally Posted by StringBean

Just to piss everyone off I realized last night that my car's "fade" setting was set real forward (so all the low end from the back of the car was missing) and the treble was turned down a lot. LOL

It doesn't piss me off. I use MM27's in a well treated space.

The cool thing about my monitoring situation (which also includes a pair of Avantones) is that I can confidently mix fom my chair and know that it's going to translate everywhere else when I'm happy with it. I am thinking about incorporating something else - maybe a boombox or some computer speakers for variety - but I can already pretty much hear all I need to hear to compete with the big boys. The tiniest EQ/compression/balance tweaks are fairly obvious on the MM27s, and the Avantones are great "real world" balance tool. A world class mix is the cumulative result of optimizing a zillion tiny details and highlighting whatever drama you can find in the material (or create) and it's much easier and more fun if you have revealing tools.

I so don't miss having to repeatedly check mixes in my car .

[jonathan jetter]

Originally Posted by StringBean

Just to piss everyone off I realized last night that my car's "fade" setting was set real forward (so all the low end from the back of the car was missing) and the treble was turned down a lot. LOL

yeah. how about that.