The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 Search This Thread  Search This Forum  Search Reviews  Search Gear Database  Search Gear for sale  Search Gearslutz Go Advanced
High end nearfield test
Old 1st March 2014
  #1681
Lives for gear
 
JP__'s Avatar
 

Audiovision, funny that you compare strauss and psi. In my experience I see psi more nearby the geithain than the strauss.
Weve listen to strauss with different poweramps. With a cheaper one they sounded like I know a lot of studiomonitors: flat, everything there but somewhat slow and unhonest. With a expensive amp( big hothouse) suddenly there was the all the presence, the room response, the attacks in bass and mids and the dryness that I have missed before.
With one amp I had the feeling of a nice pleasant cloudyness and with the other the feeling of real, sometimes even unpleasant honesty...
the differences between two different strauss modells and geithain rl903 in this studio was huge.
Regarding psi I ve only listen to 215A which can sound can sound quite defensive in the mids and pronounced in bass depending on the room. I know quite a lot people they see them and a lot of the geithain range as quite pleasant hifi speakers...
Old 1st March 2014
  #1682
Lives for gear
 
paul brown's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by JP__ View Post
. I know quite a lot people they see them and a lot of the geithain range as quite pleasant hifi speakers...
this statement needs evidence. "quite a lot of people", how many is that and who are they? how do you know the opinion of this unknown number of individuals? are they qualified to comment, etc, etc?

it is an ambiguous statement used to make a criticism. a statement with no provided evidence or source.
Old 1st March 2014
  #1683
Geariophile
 
Karloff70's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by paul brown View Post
this statement needs evidence. "quite a lot of people", how many is that and who are they? how do you know the opinion of this unknown number of individuals? are they qualified to comment, etc, etc?

it is an ambiguous statement used to make a criticism. a statement with no provided evidence or source.
In an area of such subjectivity finding the type of hard evidence you're alluding to could prove tricky.
Old 1st March 2014
  #1684
Gear Guru
 
John Willett's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by JP__ View Post
I know quite a lot people they see them and a lot of the geithain range as quite pleasant hifi speakers...
Well, ME-Geithain *do* also manufacture a range of hi-fi loudspeakers (as do also PMC, Harbeth, etc...).

Also - many hi-fi purists do want to hear cleanly and accurately and specifically buy monitors for home use - the reverse of many studios that used to use loudspeakers designed for hi-fi use as monitors (EG: B&W 801 and the Quad Electrostatics).
Old 1st March 2014
  #1685
Lives for gear
 
JP__'s Avatar
 

I see it the same way; there is not something like that 'hifi' and this 'studio'.
Old 1st March 2014
  #1686
Lives for gear
 
SteelyDani's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by JP__ View Post
I see it the same way; there is not something like that 'hifi' and this 'studio'.
Oh, thank you. I've never understood the classification "studio" versus "hifi" . I do understand easily many other adjectives referring to monitors and used on this thread (excellent), but no such classification.

When I think that the NS10 were originally designed for home use ...

Of course my confusion is even greater when it comes to mastering.
Old 1st March 2014
  #1687
Lives for gear
 
JP__'s Avatar
 

-

Last edited by JP__; 1st March 2014 at 07:38 PM.. Reason: shitty mobile devise...
Old 1st March 2014
  #1688
Lives for gear
 
paul brown's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by JP__ View Post
I see it the same way; there is not something like that 'hifi' and this 'studio'.
my apologies. i have seen the term "hi-fi" on this forum used in a both positive and negative way. i thought you were being negative.
Old 1st March 2014
  #1689
Lives for gear
 
Audiovisjon's Avatar
 

Thread Starter
Quote:
Originally Posted by JP__ View Post
Audiovision, funny that you compare strauss and psi. In my experience I see psi more nearby the geithain than the strauss.
Weve listen to strauss with different poweramps. With a cheaper one they sounded like I know a lot of studiomonitors: flat, everything there but somewhat slow and unhonest. With a expensive amp( big hothouse) suddenly there was the all the presence, the room response, the attacks in bass and mids and the dryness that I have missed before.
With one amp I had the feeling of a nice pleasant cloudyness and with the other the feeling of real, sometimes even unpleasant honesty...
the differences between two different strauss modells and geithain rl903 in this studio was huge.
Regarding psi I ve only listen to 215A which can sound can sound quite defensive in the mids and pronounced in bass depending on the room. I know quite a lot people they see them and a lot of the geithain range as quite pleasant hifi speakers...
Hey JP!

I canĀ“t quite relate to the Psi being closer to the Geithain sound compared to the Strauss. The all sound very different to me and my point was that I think the PSI would fill the same Geithain "gap" as the Strauss would do when it comes to presenting micro dynamics and "hyper details" .. Not that they sound alike :-)

I tested the Strauss with several different amps.. Both high-end and one Nad 320 at the lower end of the scale for fun.. I actually did not find the Strauss as "picky" on the amp as some other passive speakers I`v tried but could clearly hear the difference nonetheless. As before I ended up liking the Hypex Ncore400 better than my all time favorite amp for years... the Dynamic Presicion DPA that I also tested. Leif Erntsen is a brilliant designer and even delivered this amp to Abbey Road among others.

As earlier discussed it is important to remember that the rooms virtual " equalizer" in addition to a lot of other aspects will by the law of nature cause us to experience sound very different from place to place. That is why I think its vital to compare speakers under the same criteria's and acoustical conditions to be able to make informed decisions about the actual differences.. Make sense ?
Old 1st March 2014
  #1690
Lives for gear
 

What a killer thread, thank you for sharing all this info with us!

So you would pick PSI, Geithain, and Strauss over the new MM27 Gen2's then?
Old 2nd March 2014
  #1691
Lives for gear
 
JP__'s Avatar
 

Audiovisio, yes they all sound very different. As I have said Ive only listen to psi 215, which are maybe a bit special in their range. Also, all the geithain I have listen sounded very different.
You lift these testing prcedre to another level. I have tested quite some ls some time ago, but not all in the same room. Long time I had this feeling of missing something, mostly regarding realness. The sound a microphone delivers near a instrument and the sound I hear through a ls never matches very good. Especially with orchester music and regarding the depth of field, transients over frequency,...
the strauss with the hothouse amp were the first one I feel a real honesty.
So is no real science, more a personal thing.
Old 2nd March 2014
  #1692
Lives for gear
 
JP__'s Avatar
 


Last edited by JP__; 2nd March 2014 at 09:25 AM.. Reason: ****ing doublepost...
Old 2nd March 2014
  #1693
Deleted User
Guest
as i said before i've had the psi 17, geithain rl904 and work sometimes with strauss nf3 at university. and i bought the psi 21 (v3) 10 days ago, that i'm listening to right now :p

i would say psi 21 is the most "correct" speaker that i've had personally. these speakers will work for me. i feel more confident when working with them. even more confident that strauss nf3! and with noooo fatigue!

and as i am classical musician, they have the accuracy that i need too see and feel the instruments in orchestra.
but for pop, hiphop etc they MAY not be as convincing when just "listening to music" (not mixing/mastering) is the aim.

I've heard better speakers like modified tyler decade 1. but they have other dimensions... so i'd better not to compare them to psi 21 which i bought for my relatively small room.
Old 2nd March 2014
  #1694
Gear interested
 

Hello all, I'm new to this board, a customer sent me a link and I've skimmed this thread. I'm a speaker manufacturer not interested in selling our products here as much as discussing the evaluation of studio monitors.

Before I bought half of AVI I was at ATC where I spent considerable time on the pro side in recording studios control rooms and working with leading acousticians treating them. I left in '95.

I've picked a few points from what I've read and I comment below in the hopes they are helpful.

1. I think most would agree that in terms of clarity, accuracy and neutrality, headphones are better than most speakers. Not only that but they outsell them many hundred times over and most music is heard on them. Therefore they should surely be the first reference by which monitors and the acoustics in which they are played are assessed. As a company that designs and makes speakers they are ours. Most of our potential customers have good headphones and want comparable speakers. Often they are unhappy with what they have, even when they are extremely expensive.

2. Hi fi speakers should surely sound the same as monitors as both should sound identical to the original performance. If you record a string quartet, or Jazz band or a piano or a violin, you surely want to monitors to sound the same, because if they don't you might apply undesirable EQ to correct the sound of the speakers rather than the sound of the players. The chap who buys the recording also wants to hear the band and not have to fiddle with his EQ to correct the damage a sound engineer's monitors have caused.

3. Room correction, digital or analogue, cannot work because you rely on the first arrival from the speakers to make your critical judgement. Alter that to compensate for what happens as a result of early reflections and reverberant energy (later events) and you can no longer make a proper judgement. Also you've stuffed phase in the process.

4. There are monitors being discussed on here that I'm familiar with and their faults, yet I'm not seeing them described as I would. I've seen few references to stereo image, or clarity and I've seen mid ranges that are quite poor described as good. Puzzling.

5. Some posters have used a monitor for evaluation to mix some music till it sounds nice and then played it on other speakers to see if it still sounds nice. Really. Isn't the goal to use monitors that, as accurately as technically possible, reproduce what has been recorded, better if possible than the gear customers will hear it on, so that they all, within the limitations of what they own, hear the same.

6. The term information retrieval is used and I'm wary of that because I know how easy it is to confuse clarity with distortion. Tweeters are notoriously harsh, finding a neutral one is a nightmare, but a little bit of harshness might make a voice clear that isn't or one that is harsh and bright. In both cases EQ would be bad. Headphones can help.

I could go on, some will say I have too long and others will point out glaring errors. So be it, hopefully it stimulates a discussion or even points to a consensus, because it surely is extraordinary that there isn't one in this extremely long thread. Or is it just that unlike headphones, speakers fall way short of the requirement.

My feeling is that a Headphones have probably killed hi fi except for fanatics, and that in the main, movie sound tracks are much better than so music, it needs thinking about.

Ash
Old 2nd March 2014
  #1695
Lives for gear
 
JP__'s Avatar
 

Very good points and I can assent all of them, except your explanation regarding headphones; I always find them artificial, mostly in the highs. To me they deliver nothing what a good loudspeaker does not do better or equal and for me they are far away from a reference in any way. Except bass levels of course, especially in not high quality rooms.
Old 2nd March 2014
  #1696
Gear Guru
 
John Willett's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by JP__ View Post
.....Also, all the geithain I have listen sounded very different.
Interesting - as I find all the Geithain's sound the same, with the only real difference being in bass extension.

Certainly I found it difficult to tell the difference between the RL906 and RL901K when listening in the same room and switching between them.
Old 2nd March 2014
  #1697
Lives for gear
 
JP__'s Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Willett View Post
Interesting - as I find all the Geithain's sound the same, with the only real difference being in bass extension.

Certainly I found it difficult to tell the difference between the RL906 and RL901K when listening in the same room and switching between them.
Yes, we have discussed this a few times before...
When I talk about Geithains range I not only mean RL. Ive also listen to their HIFI- and MO-range. But between RL 940 and RL903 I have heard exactly the difference that I also hear between a lot other 2-way systems with bigger woofers (8" and bigger) and 3-way-systems, especially in the mids.
I would be surprised if only geithain can outsmart the physics...
Old 2nd March 2014
  #1698
Lives for gear
 
Hjelmevold's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ashley James View Post
[long list of points]
...hopefully [my comment] stimulates a discussion or even points to a consensus, because it surely is extraordinary that there isn't one in this extremely long thread. Or is it just that unlike headphones, speakers fall way short of the requirement...
Ashley, you bring up a great deal of points that each are an interesting discussion topic on their own. But I fear that if I answer them here with the depth that they deserve, this discussion will quickly grow way outside of the original scope of this thread. Still, you probably spent a lot of time writing your post, so I'll try to answer at least one of your points in detail. One that I find the most relevant to the methodology used in this thread:

Quote:
5. Some posters have used a monitor for evaluation to mix some music till it sounds nice and then played it on other speakers to see if it still sounds nice. Really. Isn't the goal to use monitors that, as accurately as technically possible, reproduce what has been recorded, better if possible than the gear customers will hear it on, so that they all, within the limitations of what they own, hear the same.
You seem to point out that there is a contradiction, in that one can't achieve a realistic representation by mixing until it sounds nice and translates to other systems. And I interpret your views in such a way, that you believe that this contradiction lies in the fact that "realistic representation" and "sounds nice" are incompatible goals when it comes to speaker design (or mixing?).

Let me begin by saying that when I read someone in this thread claiming that a mix "sounds nice" or "sounds good", I read it as if they mean that it sounds "just right", or "problem-free". But this doesn't mean that "just right" is necessarily a true representation of the source. In fact, I would claim that the only true representation of the source is the source itself.

As soon as you record something with a microphone, you've already changed the signal much more than you could hope to regain by using the "most realistic" audio playback systems in the world. The closest you can get is perhaps a dummy head recording going straight into headphones, but with that setup you have both the problem with the HRTF function of the dummy head, as well as the coloration of headphones, and individual differences in ear shape of the listeners.

So I think most mixing engineers have accepted that a "true to the source" playback at the listener is not practically possible, so we should instead try to achieve some sort of synthesized sound that can be accepted by most listeners as a "platonic ideal truth" on most playback systems. And when you're on a tight schedule and listen to audio 8 hours a day, you can't have the luxury of listening to each and every detail. You need monitors with enough accuracy and neutrality to be reliable tools, but as you can never fully reach the perfect sound, you need a more practical approach that tells you when your work is "good enough".

A quick analogy:
If you're a carpenter, it's nice to have a scalpel for doing detailed woodwork ornaments, but in many cases it's much faster and more practical to use a more general-purpose knife, even if it doesn't give you complete accuracy. Your customer may not notice the difference in the end result, and you are both happy because you were able to deliver a satisfactory result in time.

Some monitors work well by pointing out flaws until you fix them and your mix sounds problem-free. Other monitors work well by sounding nice when you do the right decisions. But in the end, what matters most is that you're able to work quickly and with confidence, and that your work translates well when played back on other systems. Usually this 'translation' is a combination of sounding impressive and problem-free, which I would claim can just as well be "true to the original performance" as it could be "out of this world". Therefore, I don't agree with your view that there is a contradiction here, and I believe that Audiovisjon's approach to his testing of high-end nearfields is a very sensible one.

Finally, I'll briefly discuss your other points:

#1 Headphones are in many ways more accurate than studio monitors, but many other aspects (lack of bass impact and cross-feed, coloration in the high frequencies due to individual ear shape, ear fatigue...) make them difficult to use as a main mixing tool. The theory may be in favor of headphones, but in practice, many people are not able to work on them.

#2 is a direct extension of my main answer above (trueness to the original performance is not possible in practice). Anyone is welcome to "fiddle with his EQ to correct the damage", as the recording engineer already has done too much damage the moment the microphone picks up the original signal. A good mix may bring order to the chaos, but it can't put the listener in the spot of the microphone, and there's also the question of whether or not that is the correct thing to do.

#3 There is a lot of truth to your claim that room correction is not useful, and many people avoid using it for such reasons. Those who use room correction, agree that it is not ideal, but find that it's a practical compromise that makes their situation easier. Regarding your "direct sound vs. reverberation" argument: Many studios have early reflections (such as those from mixing desks) that arrive well within the window at which time-domain masking is fusing direct and reverberated sound. The situation that acoustics gives you is a very complex dilemma that is not wise to answer with absolute normative claims.

#4 Qualitative opinions are subjective, so they will differ from person to person. (That was quite a tautology!)

#6 Good point, and many use headphones for this kind of "detail checking" during mixing. So if you feel like I rejected your ideas when answering #1, then this is where I agree with you.
Old 2nd March 2014
  #1699
Quote:
Originally Posted by paul brown View Post
my apologies. i have seen the term "hi-fi" on this forum used in a both positive and negative way. i thought you were being negative.
So did I.
"I know quite a lot people they see them and a lot of the geithain range as quite pleasant hifi speakers..." certainly sounds pointedly dismissive of PSI and Geithain in a manner I am familiar with; "hi-fi" being a term generally associated with domestic equipment.
Old 2nd March 2014
  #1700
Gear interested
 

Hjelmevold

I'm suggesting that headphones are a much more accurate reference than typical monitors and that this is why there is consensus on which models might be best. There isn't with speakers because they vary too much. All have strengths and weaknesses, but almost none provide long term irritation free accuracy of headphones. The business in the UK is worth more than all the consumer HiFi together, several times so. They're killing old legacy hi if and no studio can afford to mix without an eye to the fact that their material is most likely what the critical listener will be using. Otherwise it's mostly portables and cars.

I'm also suggesting that speakers need to be as good as headphones, ours are and they have to be because they are what the customers use for reference. Customers with expensive speakers cannot listen to them because they sound awful after their headphones.

Think about it and don't be so quick to dismiss.
Old 2nd March 2014
  #1701
Geariophile
 
Karloff70's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ashley James View Post
Hjelmevold

I'm suggesting that headphones are a much more accurate reference than typical monitors and that this is why there is consensus on which models might be best. There isn't with speakers because they vary too much. All have strengths and weaknesses, but almost none provide long term irritation free accuracy of headphones. The business in the UK is worth more than all the consumer HiFi together, several times so. They're killing old legacy hi if and no studio can afford to mix without an eye to the fact that their material is most likely what the critical listener will be using. Otherwise it's mostly portables and cars.

I'm also suggesting that speakers need to be as good as headphones, ours are and they have to be because they are what the customers use for reference. Customers with expensive speakers cannot listen to them because they sound awful after their headphones.

Think about it and don't be so quick to dismiss.
Sounds like you're coming at it from another angle than someone using speakers (and headphones in whatever capacity) to make records. Like some other sort of logic. Hjelmevold spelled it out with admirable eloquence I thought.
Old 2nd March 2014
  #1702
Lives for gear
 
Fleaman's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Karloff70 View Post
Sounds like you're coming at it from another angle than someone using speakers (and headphones in whatever capacity) to make records.
I got the same drift.
Old 2nd March 2014
  #1703
Gear interested
 

Not at all, some of the recording engineers we work with have to balance with headphones because they are on location.

I think we may have better references than many board members and of course there is this increasing dominance of headphones and that they hear problems producers who don't use them often don't.
Old 2nd March 2014
  #1704
Geariophile
 
Karloff70's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ashley James View Post
Not at all, some of the recording engineers we work with have to balance with headphones because they are on location.

I think we may have better references than many board members and of course there is this increasing dominance of headphones and that they hear problems producers who don't use them often don't.
The whole coup with this thread is how beautifully it spells out that 'better references/tools' is a subjective variable dependent on the user, the room and the job at hand, not an objective something.

Your subjective reality seems to say headphones are somehow 'better' than speakers, which to me is a bit like beans are better than oranges. Sure, headphones are great to show up bad edits and clicks, etc. But actually a set of PSI is pretty damned efective for those tasks too (only using those as reference of a speaker as I owned them for a year). Still, most tasks are better on speakers in my reality.....
Old 3rd March 2014
  #1705
Lives for gear
 
paul brown's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Russell Dawkins View Post
So did I.
"I know quite a lot people they see them and a lot of the geithain range as quite pleasant hifi speakers..." certainly sounds pointedly dismissive of PSI and Geithain in a manner I am familiar with; "hi-fi" being a term generally associated with domestic equipment.
i chose to give the benefit of doubt. it is seemingly an emotive subject and i do not want to derail the thread. Audiovisjon has done an admirable job (even with the personal PMs!) of keeping this thread polite and informative. it is worth bearing in mind that some participants are using english as their second language. sometimes this can cause confusion.
Old 3rd March 2014
  #1706
Lives for gear
 
DR Music's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ashley James View Post
Hello all, I'm new to this board, a customer sent me a link and I've skimmed this thread. I'm a speaker manufacturer not interested in selling our products here as much as discussing the evaluation of studio monitors.

Before I bought half of AVI I was at ATC where I spent considerable time on the pro side in recording studios control rooms and working with leading acousticians treating them. I left in '95.

I've picked a few points from what I've read and I comment below in the hopes they are helpful.

1. I think most would agree that in terms of clarity, accuracy and neutrality, headphones are better than most speakers. Not only that but they outsell them many hundred times over and most music is heard on them. Therefore they should surely be the first reference by which monitors and the acoustics in which they are played are assessed. As a company that designs and makes speakers they are ours. Most of our potential customers have good headphones and want comparable speakers. Often they are unhappy with what they have, even when they are extremely expensive.

2. Hi fi speakers should surely sound the same as monitors as both should sound identical to the original performance. If you record a string quartet, or Jazz band or a piano or a violin, you surely want to monitors to sound the same, because if they don't you might apply undesirable EQ to correct the sound of the speakers rather than the sound of the players. The chap who buys the recording also wants to hear the band and not have to fiddle with his EQ to correct the damage a sound engineer's monitors have caused.

3. Room correction, digital or analogue, cannot work because you rely on the first arrival from the speakers to make your critical judgement. Alter that to compensate for what happens as a result of early reflections and reverberant energy (later events) and you can no longer make a proper judgement. Also you've stuffed phase in the process.

4. There are monitors being discussed on here that I'm familiar with and their faults, yet I'm not seeing them described as I would. I've seen few references to stereo image, or clarity and I've seen mid ranges that are quite poor described as good. Puzzling.

5. Some posters have used a monitor for evaluation to mix some music till it sounds nice and then played it on other speakers to see if it still sounds nice. Really. Isn't the goal to use monitors that, as accurately as technically possible, reproduce what has been recorded, better if possible than the gear customers will hear it on, so that they all, within the limitations of what they own, hear the same.

6. The term information retrieval is used and I'm wary of that because I know how easy it is to confuse clarity with distortion. Tweeters are notoriously harsh, finding a neutral one is a nightmare, but a little bit of harshness might make a voice clear that isn't or one that is harsh and bright. In both cases EQ would be bad. Headphones can help.

I could go on, some will say I have too long and others will point out glaring errors. So be it, hopefully it stimulates a discussion or even points to a consensus, because it surely is extraordinary that there isn't one in this extremely long thread. Or is it just that unlike headphones, speakers fall way short of the requirement.

My feeling is that a Headphones have probably killed hi fi except for fanatics, and that in the main, movie sound tracks are much better than so music, it needs thinking about.

Ash
Thank you for your 2 cents!

As for me I always pay more attention/advise from people who work in real, working studio. (I have my circle of engineers in town and buddies here who happen to have a similar ear as mine) I'm sure you know and have studied everything to do with speakers/monitors. But I would trust AudioVison over any company owner. Nothing bad. Thanks for all the time you have spent here AVision!

My 2 cents.
Old 3rd March 2014
  #1707
Lives for gear
 
JP__'s Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by DR Music View Post
I'm sure you know and have studied everything to do with speakers/monitors. But I would trust AudioVison over any company owner.

My 2 cents.
Gearslutz is a forum full of companies, resellers, distribution and marketing boys. So you have always be very careful whom you trust regarding product recommendations. My 2cents...
Old 3rd March 2014
  #1708
Gear Nut
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ashley James View Post
Hjelmevold

I'm suggesting that headphones are a much more accurate reference than typical monitors and that this is why there is consensus on which models might be best. There isn't with speakers because they vary too much. All have strengths and weaknesses, but almost none provide long term irritation free accuracy of headphones. The business in the UK is worth more than all the consumer HiFi together, several times so. They're killing old legacy hi if and no studio can afford to mix without an eye to the fact that their material is most likely what the critical listener will be using. Otherwise it's mostly portables and cars.

I'm also suggesting that speakers need to be as good as headphones, ours are and they have to be because they are what the customers use for reference. Customers with expensive speakers cannot listen to them because they sound awful after their headphones.

Think about it and don't be so quick to dismiss.
I don't really get how somebody who is designing speakers can honestly think that headphones are any kind of reference.

I've heard only few that are ok and even less I would accept as good and even fewer that one would call accurate. In most headphones frequency response is all over and distortion is pretty high and obvious. And do not get me started about compression of the drivers.

And even the accurate ones still are inferior to good monitoring thru speakers for the design depending flaws of headphones when it comes to translation.

Headphones have too much separation left/right and they have no front back localization at all, because the center is always in your head. They pronounce rooms too much pretty often and so on and so on. On really good headphones you can make a mix, if you have to (on location) and it might translate pretty good to other headphones (no all, because of the bad quality of too many them) but it translates no too good to speakers of all kinds.

Opposite to that really good nearfield speakers in a good room translate good to speakers and headphones.

You will never be able to make translation to every possible playback source. How could you. A balanced and natural mix will always be bass heavy and unnaturally boomy on Dr. Dre headphones as they will be on pretty much every "BoomBox" in boomy rooms. So you will never achieve a perfect translation to everywhere. But with decent monitoring in a decent room, that interacts decent with you, you will have far better results with better translation to most playback sources than with even the best headphones.

You can not beat physics.

That said I agree that good headphones are superior to just ok speakers, but that is no the topic here.

Last edited by Basstian_DE; 3rd March 2014 at 09:26 AM.. Reason: spelling even though it is not really getting any better ;-)
Old 3rd March 2014
  #1709
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Basstian_DE View Post
That said I agree that good headphones are superior to just ok speakers, but that is no the topic here.
Good headphones can be superior to just about any speakers in one field: signal detail accuracy. I have used many great monitors from NS-1000M to ADAM to big PMC monitors, but the amount of micro detail Sennheiser HD800 headphones can deliver is just uncanny.

I am not saying they are better than speakers for mixing and mastering, but sometimes only those HD800 can show certain small details (mistakes...) in masters, reason enough to listen all material once with them before release.
Old 3rd March 2014
  #1710
Lives for gear
 
allstar's Avatar
 

I agree that headphones are very good when you're listening for details such as click, pops, bad edits. It is my experience however that they cannot be trusted implicitly for important balance decisions.
I experimented with mixing on headphones a lot some years back as I began doing more and more work from home where I didn't have decent monitor speakers or room treatment. After trying around 7 pairs of headphones and finding some I 'clicked' with I still found that mixes done on headphones would often have balance errors when played back on the monitors at the studio and other loudspeakers.
One could argue that the reverse is true, mixes done on speakers have errors played on headphones, but I've found that the magnitude of errors is greater with the translation from headphone mixes to loudspeakers than loudspeaker mixes to headphones.

As already mentioned, most mixers will of course be checking on both, but I find it much quicker to mix on speakers till I'm happy with the balance and then check it works on headphones and adjust if necessary.
New Reply Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook  Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter  Submit Thread to LinkedIn LinkedIn  Submit Thread to Google+ Google+  Submit Thread to Reddit Reddit 
 
Topic:
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearslutz Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Forum Jump