scope Wrote:One question to the cans creux eg Macc - do you never use a hifi, car stereo, pc speakers, or any other playback device as a sanity check when mixing? All of these I see as useful reference tools, whether mixing on cans or monitors.
Of course I do  I thought I'd mentioned that somewhere 
![[Image: protabl3.gif]](http://216.127.78.46/~muckybe/protabl3.gif) Don Cherry Wrote:Every human is blessed in her or his life with one love (passion), no matter how long it may last. This Absolute love will last in one's heart and soul forever.
scope Wrote:just to play devils advocate, i do agree that theres bigger variety in sound with cans than there is with monitors.
hmmm... maybe. all a matter of price innit :d
Quote:if we flip the logic, if you mix through cans and it translates to sounding great on monitors, then it wont be sounding the same (ie it will sound worse?) through cans. so you must learn to mix with it sounding 'different' to what it really actually sounds like when played through a neutral system....what happens when you do mix on monitors then? how quickly can one adjust if you never usually mix on monitors?
first off, i am shocked that you use the phrase 'neutral system'. :d what's that then? do you know anyone that has one? anyone who isn't in a floating room with £20000 monitors and an equal amount of acoustic treatment?
in answer to the rest; money and everything else wise, john/dgohn's monitors are (according to most people) a far superior listening tool than my cans. but why then do the mixes i do at home on my cans sound so much better than those i do on his monitors (not that i have mixed anything there for a while) ? no prizes for getting this answer right: cos i know them better.
Quote:im using cans purely as a reference tool, along with car stereo, cheap hifi etc. though i have done solid mixes while on the road (that last d&b tune i posted a couple of weeks back was composed (and inherently mixed through composition) entirely on cans), but most of the time the mixes have been improved when bringing them to the full studio. however i cant attribute that entirely to monitors since when in the main studio i also use a console and an array of outboard.
and nothing at all to do with the fact that you have spent far more time actually mixing on those monitors in that room i spose. all those hours of experience have nothing to do with it.  
Quote:sooooooooo
let me pose a question.
if its just a case of getting used to whatever you are using, cans, hi-fi speakers, a boombox, a club pa, whatever it may be.....then what is the point of neutral studio monitors?
why do we and pretty much anyone you ask in the know tell you that you should mix on neutral monitors, and to ditch the crappy hifi speakers or whatever ?
why do monitor companies exist even? is it all a big con ? has everyone been duped ?
according to the arguments presented against that article then yes we have all been duped (apart from macc who still has his cans  )
i aaaaaalmost agree with this point of view to be honest.
case in point, two of my own tunes that have been released on vinyl, raa raa raa - if... and swallow it.
both those tunes were mixed entirely at work, on 'harman/kardon' ported little rubbish probably 3" cone pc speakers. i've been using these pretty much every day for 2 years.
when i heard swallow it at ichione, it sounded equally as well mixed as anything else i heard that night, with immense quantities of bass (heaviest i'd heard up to that point in the evening - i had to break off conversation to make sure   ) and a nice general balance overall. it certainly didn't sound worse than anything else id heard that evening.
as for 'if...' (cue shameless but necessary self-back-patting), zane lowe - who probably hears thouuuuusands of records - played it on radio one - where they play thooouuusands of records - and said it was 'exquisitely produced' (i think they're the actual words).
now of course, hearing them from vinyl some work has been done to them in the mastering, but as we all know you can't polish a turd.
so stick that in your floating room and smoke it 
the main reason for buying the best possible (ie affordable) monitors is so that you know that what you are hearing will translate equally well across all systems. you mix at the highest quality level, and then it will translate equally well to all quality levels below that, if you follow me. that's at least a large part of the the idea. another part being that you know what you're hearing is 'teh trooff' and can have faith that what you hear is what is being played.
[aside - that last sentence, reading it back, sounds very idealistic to me]
however, if you go out and about and are fortunate enough to hear your stuff on lots of systems, get lots of feedback, and know how to mix in the first place, you get a much better idea of how whatever you are mixing on translates across all systems. that cuts out a lot of the need for high powered gear (arguably). you are able to translate 'across' the quality levels, rather than just down them (if that makes sense).
thinking about it, the most important mix aid i have (apart from mda limiter  ) is nothing more than my sony fontopia earphones and my mp3 player. i fucking know those bastards, believe. i make make more important mix decisions on those than anything else, probably cos i do more listening to all sorts of music on those than anything else.
all very interesting.
when we have time i'd like to discuss exactly why the equilateral triangle speaker positioning thing is so correct too scope. been thinking about that a lot.
Don Cherry Wrote:Every human is blessed in her or his life with one love (passion), no matter how long it may last. This Absolute love will last in one's heart and soul forever.
Macc Wrote:When we have time I'd like to discuss exactly WHY the equilateral triangle speaker positioning thing is so correct too Scope. Been thinking about that a lot.
you guys sure know how to party. 
bare
macc Wrote:scope Wrote:just to play devils advocate, i do agree that theres bigger variety in sound with cans than there is with monitors.
hmmm... maybe. all a matter of price innit :d
as with most other things, 
macc Wrote:Quote:if we flip the logic, if you mix through cans and it translates to sounding great on monitors, then it wont be sounding the same (ie it will sound worse?) through cans. so you must learn to mix with it sounding 'different' to what it really actually sounds like when played through a neutral system....what happens when you do mix on monitors then? how quickly can one adjust if you never usually mix on monitors?
first off, i am shocked that you use the phrase 'neutral system'. :d what's that then? do you know anyone that has one? anyone who isn't in a floating room with £20000 monitors and an equal amount of acoustic treatment?
just talking about ideals of course. though i know my room sounds good, and i didnt spend anywhere near that
macc Wrote:in answer to the rest; money and everything else wise, john/dgohn's monitors are (according to most people) a far superior listening tool than my cans. but why then do the mixes i do at home on my cans sound so much better than those i do on his monitors (not that i have mixed anything there for a while) ? no prizes for getting this answer right: cos i know them better.
yep, and i asked the question in a post above - get used to those monitors and would your mixes improve (again its relative)?
macc Wrote:Quote:im using cans purely as a reference tool, along with car stereo, cheap hifi etc. though i have done solid mixes while on the road (that last d&b tune i posted a couple of weeks back was composed (and inherently mixed through composition) entirely on cans), but most of the time the mixes have been improved when bringing them to the full studio. however i cant attribute that entirely to monitors since when in the main studio i also use a console and an array of outboard.
and nothing at all to do with the fact that you have spent far more time actually mixing on those monitors in that room i spose. all those hours of experience have nothing to do with it.
no that was part of my point. i was also just pointing out that there were alot of other thinsg in the equation so i couldnt solely attribute it to any one thing.
macc Wrote:Quote:sooooooooo
let me pose a question.
if its just a case of getting used to whatever you are using, cans, hi-fi speakers, a boombox, a club pa, whatever it may be.....then what is the point of neutral studio monitors?
why do we and pretty much anyone you ask in the know tell you that you should mix on neutral monitors, and to ditch the crappy hifi speakers or whatever ?
why do monitor companies exist even? is it all a big con ? has everyone been duped ?
according to the arguments presented against that article then yes we have all been duped (apart from macc who still has his cans )
i aaaaaalmost agree with this point of view to be honest.
case in point, two of my own tunes that have been released on vinyl, raa raa raa - if... and swallow it.
both those tunes were mixed entirely at work, on 'harman/kardon' ported little rubbish probably 3" cone pc speakers. i've been using these pretty much every day for 2 years.
when i heard swallow it at ichione, it sounded equally as well mixed as anything else i heard that night, with immense quantities of bass (heaviest i'd heard up to that point in the evening - i had to break off conversation to make sure ) and a nice general balance overall. it certainly didn't sound worse than anything else id heard that evening.
as for 'if...' (cue shameless but necessary self-back-patting), zane lowe - who probably hears thouuuuusands of records - played it on radio one - where they play thooouuusands of records - and said it was 'exquisitely produced' (i think they're the actual words).
now of course, hearing them from vinyl some work has been done to them in the mastering, but as we all know you can't polish a turd.
so stick that in your floating room and smoke it
why 'almost' then bob? what stops you completely agreeing with that ?
what you wrote below?
macc Wrote:the main reason for buying the best possible (ie affordable) monitors is so that you know that what you are hearing will translate equally well across all systems. you mix at the highest quality level, and then it will translate equally well to all quality levels below that, if you follow me. that's at least a large part of the the idea.
dont really follow that one tbh as it seems to be at odds with the 'well it doesnt matter as long as you know what you're using' argument.
macc Wrote:another part being that you know what you're hearing is 'teh trooff' and can have faith that what you hear is what is being played.
[aside - that last sentence, reading it back, sounds very idealistic to me]
ie without having to psycho-acoustically adjust what you're doing to compensate.
macc Wrote:however, if you go out and about and are fortunate enough to hear your stuff on lots of systems, get lots of feedback, and know how to mix in the first place, you get a much better idea of how whatever you are mixing on translates across all systems. that cuts out a lot of the need for high powered gear (arguably). you are able to translate 'across' the quality levels, rather than just down them (if that makes sense).
thinking about it, the most important mix aid i have (apart from mda limiter ) is nothing more than my sony fontopia earphones and my mp3 player. i fucking know those bastards, believe. i make make more important mix decisions on those than anything else, probably cos i do more listening to all sorts of music on those than anything else.
its certainly controversial. why bother with any of this gear then?
i wil take my 1176 any day over a plugin version, uad or otherwise. no doubts. its an easy decision for me.
but we talk about monitors as being the most important part of the chain.
macc Wrote:all very interesting.
aye fo' sho'
macc Wrote:when we have time i'd like to discuss exactly why the equilateral triangle speaker positioning thing is so correct too scope. been thinking about that a lot.
now that is a big ol' subject! be great to chat about that when i get back sir...
scope Wrote:Macc Wrote:When we have time I'd like to discuss exactly WHY the equilateral triangle speaker positioning thing is so correct too Scope. Been thinking about that a lot.
Now that is a BIG ol' subject! Be great to chat about that when I get back sir...
PS. The problem with the equilateral approach is that it completely ignores the impact of room reflections.
Bob, you probably know alreay but generally 80% of the sound you hear is from the room, and only 20% direct from the speakers.
When I set up my room, I use the flame and ribbon methods that Mike Stavrou advocates. Works great, will explain more when I have time.
scope Wrote:yep, and i asked the question in a post above - get used to those monitors and would your mixes improve (again its relative)?
quite possibly - after a *lot* of time of hearing mixes done on them elsehwere. and probably after checking through my cans
Quote:no that was part of my point. i was also just pointing out that there were alot of other thinsg in the equation so i couldnt solely attribute it to any one thing.
why 'almost' then bob? what stops you completely agreeing with that ?
what you wrote below?
macc Wrote:the main reason for buying the best possible (ie affordable) monitors is so that you know that what you are hearing will translate equally well across all systems. you mix at the highest quality level, and then it will translate equally well to all quality levels below that, if you follow me. that's at least a large part of the the idea.
dont really follow that one tbh as it seems to be at odds with the 'well it doesnt matter as long as you know what you're using' argument.
the reason i allllmost agree is that at the end of the day it's best not to have to do any 'translation' - in a ideal world, our speakers and room would be so good that you wouldn't ever have any doubts that what you're hearing is the objective truth. in that situation you'd never need to hear anything anywhere else to know full well it will sound proper. the first mix you made on such a system (ears notwithstanding) would be the dog's sperdanglybits.
unfortunately that's extremely difficult and fucking expensive say, 5% of people are lucky enough to have such a situation (to pull a number out of the air).
so we are stuck with our individual subjective truths, governed by monitoring system, room, carpet, curtains etc. as such, no matter how good your monitor system is (unless you're in the 5%), you are always going to have to do some sort of inference/translation, listening on lots of systems, learning how your little pc speakers or cans or 1940's mono speaker relate to the real world.
the only thing about spending more is that it to some extent - limited mainly by the room - you have less translation to do. but you still have to translate.
one thought that strikes me here is that it may be a bad thing for cans to be like two little rooms all of their own, but at least i can take those rooms anywhere i please and have it sound the same 
Quote:its certainly controversial. why bother with any of this gear then?
i don't, if you hadn't noticed.
bob's monitoring system/s:
headphones
pc speakers
mixdowns checked on sony fontopia earphones (very good!) via creative labs (spit) mp3 player.
i don't think my mixdowns are that shit. they could improve of course, but it's a relief when they compare favourably to mixes by people who have spent a gerbillion pounds more than i have.
Quote:i wil take my 1176 any day over a plugin version, uad or otherwise. no doubts. its an easy decision for me.
that's a completely different thing though i don't get why you mention it.
Quote:but we talk about monitors as being the most important part of the chain.
the tune is the most important part of the chain
but obvious points aside , your brain does have the ability to translate. maybe some people don't want to bother so they buy teh uber precise monitorrz to save them the trouble.... then put them in their living room i'd rather save the money
all imo!
Don Cherry Wrote:Every human is blessed in her or his life with one love (passion), no matter how long it may last. This Absolute love will last in one's heart and soul forever.
yep, less translation to have to do is surely better no ?
macc Wrote:Quote:its certainly controversial. why bother with any of this gear then?
i don't, if you hadn't noticed.
bob's monitoring system/s:
headphones
pc speakers
mixdowns checked on sony fontopia earphones (very good!) via creative labs (spit) mp3 player.
i don't think my mixdowns are that shit. they could improve of course, but it's a relief when they compare favourably to mixes by people who have spent a gerbillion pounds more than i have.
not at all, i rate your mixes but there must be a reason why the majority of studio installations globally dont choose to follow the same path.
on a separate note - ear fatigue ??
macc Wrote:Quote:i wil take my 1176 any day over a plugin version, uad or otherwise. no doubts. its an easy decision for me.
that's a completely different thing though i don't get why you mention it.
an example chain:
tracking:
vocalist->mic->preamp->comp->converters->daw
mixing:
daw->converters->console->comp+eq (via insert)->monitors
the comp is just another part of the chain used to improve the quality at both the tracking and mixing stage.
the monitors are just another part of the chain.
if i get everything else absolutely perfect, and use an 1176, i know that it will undoubtedly sound better than if i used a behringer composer for example. so, easy choice - go with the 1176
similarly, if i get everything else absolutely perfect, and use my pmcs, it will undoubtedly sound better than if i use a pair of monitors that dont reproduce anything below 250hz, unless i get lucky
of course one destructively alters the sound, the other doesnt, but they both change what we hear.
im using extremes here to give the example, in reality of course its all different shades of grey.
ps: the most incredible coincidental event happened yesterday.
im here in boston with work at a seminar, and guess whos the keynote speaker kicking the conference off?
dr bose. as in bose. 
first thing he talks about is how (more than i even thought) what you hear in a typical room is 90% room reflections and 10% direct sound.
i thought it was really weird that he turned up to deliver his speech at this time!
got to speak to him afterwards and man theyve got some incredible (i mean almost unbelievable stuff (both out now and in the works).
most of their products coming to market now have been in devel for 25 years. some of the more interesting ones.
1) a speaker system that resembles a tree trunk, that when installed in a live venue and set up via the measurement software will make the sound identical pretty much wherever you go in the room
2) noise cancelling hands free car kits that send the noise cancelled signal down the call such that if driving you could have your windows wound all the way down, and the person on the other end would thing you're in a silent room
3) a completely new kind of car suspension system based on electromagnetic principles. he wouldnt give too much detail about how it worked but its gonna be massive. it allows the most comfortable ride in any car ever, with less body roll, dip or lift than any sports car ever.
thats a hell of a claim. they have already sold it to some massive car companies, and a lot of smaller ones too. apparently near impossible to have any wheels leave the ground unless in extreme conditions.
he showed a video of a 911 turbo and a big lexus going through a slalom course. the lexus had the suspension system fitted and the body stayed flat, while the 911 was rolling side to side. incredible stuff.
4) a speaker system that you can place anywhere, hide behind the sofa, wherever you want really, but still sounds great.
anyway, in short i thought the guy was a genius, a pleasure to meet him.
but i asked him about the pro-audio market and it seemed like they didnt think it a big enough market.. 
scope Wrote:yep, less translation to have to do is surely better no ?
but people can translate from arabic to english just as well as french to english
all about the nuances, and the experience to spot them
Quote:not at all, i rate your mixes but there must be a reason why the majority of studio installations globally dont choose to follow the same path.
it looks good to the customer!
imagine if you paid £2000 a day to go and mix a tune and they said 'hang on, i have to mix this down and check it on my walkman'
Quote:on a separate note - ear fatigue ??
equally a matter of volume as the monitoring system i would have thought. not something that bothers me much anyway - i mix at very moderate levels and then check it at lots of different levels.
Quote:an example chain:
tracking:
vocalist->mic->preamp->comp->converters->daw
mixing:
daw->converters->console->comp+eq (via insert)->monitors
the comp is just another part of the chain used to improve the quality at both the tracking and mixing stage.
the monitors are just another part of the chain.
if i get everything else absolutely perfect, and use an 1176, i know that it will undoubtedly sound better than if i used a behringer composer for example. so, easy choice - go with the 1176
nah man, that's input. we're talking about output and how you interpret it. input is governed by the input signal. i'd say that what we're discussing is another part of that.
taking that to a (rubbish!) logical end, you can say that you may as well get me in to sing in your studio than omar, cos you can translate the differences. errrrrrr...... nah!  or get me in to play trumpet rather than wynton marsalis or something 
i think we're talking about monitoring, and just that. the summation of everything you've done in your mix, more specifically what happens when it reaches your ears, and the thing that makes it do so. 'post transmission' if you like.
Quote:similarly, if i get everything else absolutely perfect, and use my pmcs, it will undoubtedly sound better than if i use a pair of monitors that dont reproduce anything below 250hz, unless i get lucky
oh of course, extending that (stupidly again) if you only have a speaker system that reproduces 1000 to 1001 hz, you're pretty fukt . that much i will concede - some sort of reasonable limits are of course in place.
although saying that - ns10's are really pretty rubbish outside the midrange (where i really like them), but how many well-mixed records have been made on them??
Quote:ps: the most incredible coincidental event happened yesterday.
im here in boston with work at a seminar, and guess whos the keynote speaker kicking the conference off?
dr bose. as in bose.
Quote:first thing he talks about is how (more than i even thought) what you hear in a typical room is 90% room reflections and 10% direct sound.
mad!
Quote:i thought it was really weird that he turned up to deliver his speech at this time!
where's that  smiley?
Quote:1) a speaker system that resembles a tree trunk, that when installed in a live venue and set up via the measurement software will make the sound identical pretty much wherever you go in the room
yeah, i read in sos about this almost two years ago now. seems mad! you can have monitors for every member of an orchestra and all that - there was a very big article about it, really interesting!
Quote:2) noise cancelling hands free car kits that send the noise cancelled signal down the call such that if driving you could have your windows wound all the way down, and the person on the other end would thing you're in a silent room
they make earphones like this already, have done for ages - simple minimic and inversion process.
Quote:3) a completely new kind of car suspension system based on electromagnetic principles. he wouldnt give too much detail about how it worked but its gonna be massive. it allows the most comfortable ride in any car ever, with less body roll, dip or lift than any sports car ever.
thats a hell of a claim. they have already sold it to some massive car companies, and a lot of smaller ones too. apparently near impossible to have any wheels leave the ground unless in extreme conditions.
he showed a video of a 911 turbo and a big lexus going through a slalom course. the lexus had the suspension system fitted and the body stayed flat, while the 911 was rolling side to side. incredible stuff.
raaaaaa  equations or stfu!!
Quote:4) a speaker system that you can place anywhere, hide behind the sofa, wherever you want really, but still sounds great.
Quote:anyway, in short i thought the guy was a genius, a pleasure to meet him.
i bet!!
Quote:but i asked him about the pro-audio market and it seemed like they didnt think it a big enough market..
cos everyone's buying headphones
Don Cherry Wrote:Every human is blessed in her or his life with one love (passion), no matter how long it may last. This Absolute love will last in one's heart and soul forever.
Wooooaaaaah there Lesley !!!
Tracking is input, of course !!
BUT
once the source is down on tape, hd, whatever, then....
Mixing is output.
I described BOTH chains for completeness.
Given ANY vocal, when its played back from the recording medium and put through the mixing chain then it doesnt matter if its you, Omar, or the sultry tones of SLOC, my choice of comp WILL make a difference to what I hear, just as will my choice of monitors.
The mixing chain that i described is perfectly valid in this context.
About your 1Hz bandwidth example monitors - I almost used the same example in that post, but I thought it a bit TOO extreme
But you obviously understood my point.
I guess that more translation necessary = more room for error in translation, logically.
The language example I would say is less appropriate, since you can hear all of the foreign language then do the appropriate translation.
With monitoring systems the point we are discussing is the deficiencies in them - i.e that some frequencies you cant hear, or some are more pronounced.
Imagine if you were doing your translation from Arabic to English but some words you couldnt hear properly.
PS: Ive had a pair of bose noise cancelling cans for a few years
They started in commercial aviation with that technology for pilots, then the military for both pilots and tank drivers, then moved on to in flight cans for passengers, then finally just the ones you can buy in dixons...
the difference hear is that they cancel noise for you. the car kit is an extension to that so that the person on th eother end of the fone gets the benefit. cool (if somewhat logical) idea !
Macc Wrote:Although saying that - NS10's are really pretty rubbish outside the midrange (where I really like them), but HOW many well-mixed records have been made on them??
But this is somewhat contradictory to the reason you gave earlier for why people buy more expensive monitors:
Macc Wrote:The main reason for buying the best possible (ie affordable) monitors is so that you know that what you are hearing will translate equally well across all systems. You mix at the highest quality level, and then it will translate equally well to all quality levels below that, if you follow me. That's at least a large part of the the idea. Another part being that you know what you're hearing is 'TEH TROOFF' and can have faith that what you hear is what is being played.
NS10s as you well know are far from that neutral ideal. They werent expensive but you could certainly buy objectively 'better monitors' for the same price, but it was the NS10s that are renowned for how they translate.
I've read that 3 times now and don't see how it contradicts my point
Of course there are exceptions to the 'value for money vs cost' equation.
Like my PC speakers
Don Cherry Wrote:Every human is blessed in her or his life with one love (passion), no matter how long it may last. This Absolute love will last in one's heart and soul forever.
well on one hand you say the reason for getting better monitors is because they translate better then you talk about ns10s, call them pretty shit apart from the mid range yet these are the most famous monitors in the world for translation.
but maybe theres a bigger contradiction by you saying the main reason for buying better monitors is the translation, but then saying it doesnt matter what monitoring you use because its about you knowing them and the only reason people have good systems is to impress clients
scope Wrote:The language example I would say is less appropriate, since you can hear all of the foreign language then do the appropriate translation.
With monitoring systems the point we are discussing is the deficiencies in them - i.e that some frequencies you cant hear, or some are more pronounced.
Imagine if you were doing your translation from Arabic to English but some words you couldnt hear properly.
I disagree completely there You're mixing the analogies, or misunderstanding them, sorry. The muffled words thing is entirely inappropriate to the analogy
In language terms: There are certain phrases (Fanu mentioned one on here the other day) that have no direct equivalent in English. To be able to get the meaning across requires a knowledge of both languages and the ability to approximate one from the other in the best possible way.
To make that analogy in speaker terms, one speaker may be excessively 'woolly', and to 'translate' accurately one needs to know how that woolly speaker sounds on a normal system. To overcompensate is to lose the warmth altogether, or in language terms lose all the meaning.
I'll stop here before we go waaaaaaay off into metaphorland
As for the reason why the processor being used is irrelevant to our discussion, we are discussing the reproduction system.
If you use Cubase's crusty green eq or the best vintage SSL desk eq, that same signal will be captured on tape/CD/whatever irrespective of the reproduction system. I understand what you're saying, but you are entirely missing the point to this discussion (and I *think* you know it).
Don Cherry Wrote:Every human is blessed in her or his life with one love (passion), no matter how long it may last. This Absolute love will last in one's heart and soul forever.
scope Wrote:well on one hand you say the reason for getting better monitors is because they translate better then you talk about ns10s, call them pretty shit apart from the mid range yet these are the most famous monitors in the world for translation.
If anything NS10's support my point! They really aren't very good below what, 200Hz and above 6 or 7 kHz. But they - for whatever reason (affordability, the excellent midrange, the snazzy white cones) - became accepted as the way to mix.
So obviously not-so-good (or not so expensive) gear CAN make perfectly good mixes, when people are prepared to learn them.
Quote:but maybe theres a bigger contradiction by you saying the main reason for buying better monitors is the translation, but then saying it doesnt matter what monitoring you use because its about you knowing them and the only reason people have good systems is to impress clients
I still don't see a contradiction there.
DAGH! You are either playing dumb, or just being dumb to get on my tits
Here's what I am saying:
Much more expensive monitors (arguably) make translation easier, you have to put less time/effort in to learn them and make them give you good mixes. (if your room is up to it, blah blah blah)
But it in NO way does that mean it 100% can't be done with cheaper monitors - YOU do the translation rather than the monitors. But that takes a lot of time and practice, and knowledge of how things translate.
But in the first instance, unless you're in that magic 5%, you STILL have to do some translation. So if you're going to have to learn to translate anyway, why not just get a 'decent' reproduction system and LEARN THAT MUTHAFUKKA than spend zillions and stick it in your bedroom, and have to translate anyway?
With me? 
Don Cherry Wrote:Every human is blessed in her or his life with one love (passion), no matter how long it may last. This Absolute love will last in one's heart and soul forever.
macc Wrote:scope Wrote:well on one hand you say the reason for getting better monitors is because they translate better then you talk about ns10s, call them pretty shit apart from the mid range yet these are the most famous monitors in the world for translation.
if anything ns10's support my point! they really aren't very good below what, 200hz and above 6 or 7 khz. but they - for whatever reason (affordability, the excellent midrange, the snazzy white cones) - became accepted as the way to mix.
so obviously not-so-good (or not so expensive) gear can make perfectly good mixes, when people are prepared to learn them.
ive never argued that you cant make good mixes on ns10's or whatever. proof is all around of that. i havent contended it. please dont get me wrong.
we agree that the ns10's are in the main shite
do we agree that they translate better than most monitors? i certainly think they do, and again the proof is in the p**ding as to that translation in more records than we could count.
but that to me doesnt tally with the argument that you stated that you buy 'better' (more expensive) monitors because they translate better on a bigger variety of systems.
or are ns10s just an exception to that rule in your view?
(imo the general principle behind this is because engineers generally cut mids, and boosted lows and highs with ns10s - leading to that pleasing 'smile' eq that is favoured in hi-fi's the world over as a 'pleasing' eq setting.
macc Wrote:Quote:but maybe theres a bigger contradiction by you saying the main reason for buying better monitors is the translation, but then saying it doesnt matter what monitoring you use because its about you knowing them and the only reason people have good systems is to impress clients
i still don't see a contradiction there.
dagh! you are either playing dumb, or just being dumb to get on my tits
hmmmmm you should know me better than that 
not at all playing dumb, but i did want to try and work out your view that studios buy decent monitoring systems to impress their clients.
as someone who invested in decent monitoring i can tell you that the thought has never crossed my mind, and i was kinda surprised you gave that reason.
macc Wrote:here's what i am saying:
much more expensive monitors (arguably) make translation easier, you have to put less time/effort in to learn them and make them give you good mixes. (if your room is up to it, blah blah blah)
but it in no way does that mean it 100% can't be done with cheaper monitors - you do the translation rather than the monitors. but that takes a lot of time and practice, and knowledge of how things translate.
i generally agree with this.
my reasons for buying my particular choice of good nearfield monitors:
- less distortion
- i can listen to them for hours without getting tired (particularly the hi end isnt harsh)
- solid, can handle momentary feedback/peaks/overloads
- with a reference cd i was able to hear a few details (in a song i thought i knew inside out) that i never before knew were there
to me, cheaper monitors dont have these qualities.
and thats why i chose my pmcs.
not to impress anyone else thats for sure!
and why do i think that commercial facilities have decent nearfields?
- because apart from the house engineer, most mixing is done by visiting engineers who dont have time to spend days 'learning' the system. they need to hear whats being printed to tape, not the 'sound' of the system
again, not to impress anyone else.
my main reasons for not mixing on cans
- they fatigue my ears after a while (even at low volumes)
- i dont know what volume im listening at. our ears are most accurate when presented with sounds at 85 db (fletcher-munson ideal - in reality different people will vary in their own ideal, between 83 and 87 db) - where i like to make most critical decisions. with monitors i can calibrate them to know where this is. this is when formulating the mix. ill keep the level constant for a constant reference. later on, and only later on will i alter the volume (eg turn them right down) to see if any problems stand out.
macc Wrote:but in the first instance, unless you're in that magic 5%, you still have to do some translation. so if you're going to have to learn to translate anyway, why not just get a 'decent' reproduction system and learn that muthafukka than spend zillions and stick it in your bedroom, and have to translate anyway?
see my reasons above
macc Wrote:Quote:not at all, i rate your mixes but there must be a reason why the majority of studio installations globally dont choose to follow the same path.
it looks good to the customer!
imagine if you paid £2000 a day to go and mix a tune and they said 'hang on, i have to mix this down and check it on my walkman'
all too true.......this is the "lpsi factor". (lights per sqaure inch)
i think there's a company out there making faux rackmount fronts modeled after some of the highest end channel strips strictly so you can mix/master with whatever you want, but when clients visit it looks "killer!".
|
