View Single Post
Old 12th February 2014
Karloff70's Avatar

Originally Posted by Russell Dawkins View Post
I did re-read and I think it is your logic I don't get!

It seems that Keyser Soze found the ProAc Rsponse 2 coloured and smeared, and you were suggesting that if that were true, that should lead to smeared-sounding mixes, since you cited the mixes by Maserati and Genea not sounding smeared was proof that the ProAcs did not sound smeared.

If I have this right, then this is faulty logic on your part, in the same way that bass-thin monitors tend not to result in bass-thin mixes, but the opposite–and for the same fundamental reason.
My logic/example was merely suggesting that however smeared or not they are (which I will leave to everyone's interpretation), they obviously don't get in the way of creating great results. Which is in the end what makes a great tool, not how many transients you can hear or not. Which is ONE aspect of a tool.

There is also another view on the 'situation creates opposite result' theory by the way. Like the assumption that a very bassy room creates thin mixes and such. My experience has actually been that the shape of mixes can well relate the other way to the sound of the room, and not opposite at all, so you DO get a fat mix out of a fat room rather than the opposite, and I am not alone in thinking this. In any case, your theory of smeared speakers creating hyper detailed mixes is flawed, as if the speakers are smeared you can't even hear hyper details.

Before you ask again, let me reiterate, I do NOT suggest smeared monitors to create smeared mixes.