Music Composers Unite!
Monitors (the most important hardware in your studio/music room).
This post is from a thread on another music forum of which I will publish in full for anyone interested.
Before you can do anything in the way of making polished recordings, you have to be able to trust your ears.
This cannot be over-stated. You must be able to trust what you hear, and only then can you start to make good decisions. This is partly a philosophical, state-of-mind thing, but it is also partly a practical matter. You need to be able to trust that what you hear in the control room (or in the spare bedroom you use for recording) is what is actually on the tape or the hard disk. And that means that you need to have at least a certain bare minimum of room acoustics and monitoring quality.
If there is one area in your studio to splurge on, it is monitors (aka speakers). I'm going to do a detailed buying guide later, but for now it is enough to say that the studio monitors are the the MOST important component. I would rather make a record in mono on a four-track recorder with a single decent monitor in a good room than try to make a record on a Neve console with a Bose surround-sound setup in a typical living room. And I'm not even kidding.
Passable monitors don't have to be all that expensive, and they don't have to be glorious-sounding speakers, they just have to be accurate. Let's talk for a moment on why home stereos often make bad monitors, even expensive or impressive-sounding home stereos:
The purpose of a studio reference monitor is to accurately render the playback material. The purpose of a good home stereo is to sound good. These goals are often at odds with one another, and a simple frequency chart does not answer the question.
A common trick among hifi speakers is a ported design that delivers what I call ONB, short for "one note bass." The speaker designer creates an enclosure designed to deliver a dramatic "thump" right around the frequency cutoff of the speaker. This gives an extended sense of low-end, and it gives a dramatic, focused, powerful-sounding bass that can be very enjoyable to listen to, but it is the kiss of death for reference monitoring. Every bass note is rendered like a kick drum, and the recordist cannot get an accurate sense of the level or tonality of the low-end. If you play back something mixed on a ONB system on a different stereo, the bass is all over the place, reappearing and disappearing, with no apparent consistency or logic to the level. This is especially acute when you play a record mixed on one ONB system back on a different ONB system. Notes and tones that were higher or lower than the cutoff of the other system either vanish or seem grossly out-of-proportion.
Another serious consideration is handing of the crossover frequency. On any enclosure with more than one driver (e.g. a tweeter and woofer), there is a particular frequency at which the two speakers "cross over," i.e. where one cuts off and the other picks up. The inherent distortion around this frequency range is arguably the most sensitive and delicate area of speaker design. Hifi speakers are very often designed to simply downplay the crossover frequency, or to smooth over it with deliberate distortions, and often manage to sound just fine for everyday listening. But glossing over what's really going on there is not good for reference monitoring. The fact that this often occurs in the most sensitive range of human hearing does not help matters.
Other common issues with home hifi systems are compromises made to expand the "sweet spot" by, for instance, broadening the overall dispersion of higher frequencies at the expense of creating localized distortions in certain directions, a general disregard for phase-dependent distortions that occur as a result of simultaneously producing multiple frequencies from a single driver, nonlinear response at different volume levels, as well as the more obvious and intuitive kinds of "hype" and "sizzle" that are built in to make speakers sound dramatic on the sales floor.
The important thing to understand is that none of the above necessarily produces a "bad sounding" speaker, and that the above kinds of distortions are common even among expensive, brand-name home theater systems. It's not that they sound cheap or muffled or tinny, it's just that they're not reliable enough to serve as reference-caliber studio monitors. In other words, the fact that everyone raves about how great your stereo sounds might actually be a clue that it is *not* a good monitor system.
In fact, high-end reference monitors often sound a little boring compared to razzle-dazzle hifi systems. What sets them apart is the forensic accuracy with which they reproduce sound at all playback levels, across all frequencies, and without compressing the dynamic range to "hype" the sound. On the contrary, the most important characteristic is not soaring highs and massive lows, but a broad, detailed, clinical midrange.
The two most common speakers used in the history of studio recording are certainly Yamaha NS10s and little single-driver Auratones. Neither one was especially good at lows or highs, and neither was a particularly expensive speaker in its day (both are now out of production and now command ridiculous prices on eBay). What they were good at was consistent, reproducible midrange and accurate dynamics.
Now! if any members wish to contradict the message and advice given in the text above, don't be shy, please attach an example of a recording you've mixed and mastered on headphones as an exception to the rule. I'm prepared to be amazed (not) so bring them on.
Before you can do anything in the way of making polished recordings, you have to be able to trust your ears.
This cannot be over-stated. You must be able to trust what you hear, and only then can you start to make good decisions. This is partly a philosophical, state-of-mind thing, but it is also partly a practical matter. You need to be able to trust that what you hear in the control room (or in the spare bedroom you use for recording) is what is actually on the tape or the hard disk. And that means that you need to have at least a certain bare minimum of room acoustics and monitoring quality.
If there is one area in your studio to splurge on, it is monitors (aka speakers). I'm going to do a detailed buying guide later, but for now it is enough to say that the studio monitors are the the MOST important component. I would rather make a record in mono on a four-track recorder with a single decent monitor in a good room than try to make a record on a Neve console with a Bose surround-sound setup in a typical living room. And I'm not even kidding.
Passable monitors don't have to be all that expensive, and they don't have to be glorious-sounding speakers, they just have to be accurate. Let's talk for a moment on why home stereos often make bad monitors, even expensive or impressive-sounding home stereos:
The purpose of a studio reference monitor is to accurately render the playback material. The purpose of a good home stereo is to sound good. These goals are often at odds with one another, and a simple frequency chart does not answer the question.
A common trick among hifi speakers is a ported design that delivers what I call ONB, short for "one note bass." The speaker designer creates an enclosure designed to deliver a dramatic "thump" right around the frequency cutoff of the speaker. This gives an extended sense of low-end, and it gives a dramatic, focused, powerful-sounding bass that can be very enjoyable to listen to, but it is the kiss of death for reference monitoring. Every bass note is rendered like a kick drum, and the recordist cannot get an accurate sense of the level or tonality of the low-end. If you play back something mixed on a ONB system on a different stereo, the bass is all over the place, reappearing and disappearing, with no apparent consistency or logic to the level. This is especially acute when you play a record mixed on one ONB system back on a different ONB system. Notes and tones that were higher or lower than the cutoff of the other system either vanish or seem grossly out-of-proportion.
Another serious consideration is handing of the crossover frequency. On any enclosure with more than one driver (e.g. a tweeter and woofer), there is a particular frequency at which the two speakers "cross over," i.e. where one cuts off and the other picks up. The inherent distortion around this frequency range is arguably the most sensitive and delicate area of speaker design. Hifi speakers are very often designed to simply downplay the crossover frequency, or to smooth over it with deliberate distortions, and often manage to sound just fine for everyday listening. But glossing over what's really going on there is not good for reference monitoring. The fact that this often occurs in the most sensitive range of human hearing does not help matters.
Other common issues with home hifi systems are compromises made to expand the "sweet spot" by, for instance, broadening the overall dispersion of higher frequencies at the expense of creating localized distortions in certain directions, a general disregard for phase-dependent distortions that occur as a result of simultaneously producing multiple frequencies from a single driver, nonlinear response at different volume levels, as well as the more obvious and intuitive kinds of "hype" and "sizzle" that are built in to make speakers sound dramatic on the sales floor.
The important thing to understand is that none of the above necessarily produces a "bad sounding" speaker, and that the above kinds of distortions are common even among expensive, brand-name home theater systems. It's not that they sound cheap or muffled or tinny, it's just that they're not reliable enough to serve as reference-caliber studio monitors. In other words, the fact that everyone raves about how great your stereo sounds might actually be a clue that it is *not* a good monitor system.
In fact, high-end reference monitors often sound a little boring compared to razzle-dazzle hifi systems. What sets them apart is the forensic accuracy with which they reproduce sound at all playback levels, across all frequencies, and without compressing the dynamic range to "hype" the sound. On the contrary, the most important characteristic is not soaring highs and massive lows, but a broad, detailed, clinical midrange.
The two most common speakers used in the history of studio recording are certainly Yamaha NS10s and little single-driver Auratones. Neither one was especially good at lows or highs, and neither was a particularly expensive speaker in its day (both are now out of production and now command ridiculous prices on eBay). What they were good at was consistent, reproducible midrange and accurate dynamics.
Now! if any members wish to contradict the message and advice given in the text above, don't be shy, please attach an example of a recording you've mixed and mastered on headphones as an exception to the rule. I'm prepared to be amazed (not) so bring them on.
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Ray Kemp on -
Per-Erik Rosqvist said:
No hard feelings I hope Ray?Hahahaha! No, but I thought calling everything he wrote except "the first paragraph" for nonsense, was ridiculous. I only use headphones, because where I live there is very bad acoustics.
We've enjoyed a joke or two before Per-Erik. There is nothing 'life or death' important about these discussions although I do accept that humor doesn't always cross over well between differing social enclaves, locally and globally.
The word 'nonsense' can be construed as strong language, but in this case, no matter room size, acoustic treatments, etc etc etc. Headphones can be used instead of, but NEVER as a replacement for, monitor speakers.
And! my discussion is based on mixing, I never used the word 'serious'. The quality of recordings from any system in any room are for others to decide.
Perhaps I didn't make it clear in the heading of this thread. The opinions in the text are from someone with many years of experience in the recording industry. I publish their opinion here because I agree with every word.
Ray
-
Permalink Reply by Ray Kemp on
-
Roger Noren said:My room is 2.4 x 2.7 meters, which is similiar to your then. There is just no point in trying to do serious mixing in a room like that.
>
Roger, I'm looking at your avatar and it seems our disagreement on this issue has aged you.
Ray
-
Permalink Reply by Roger Noren on -
Ray Kemp said:Roger Noren said:My room is 2.4 x 2.7 meters, which is similiar to your then. There is just no point in trying to do serious mixing in a room like that.
>
Roger, I'm looking at your avatar and it seems our disagreement on this issue has aged you.
Ray
Age has NOTHING to do with it. I became that when trying to enjoy midrange in a NS10!
-
Permalink Reply by Ray Kemp on
-
Roger Noren said:Age has NOTHING to do with it. I became that when trying to enjoy midrange in a NS10!
NS10 were never designed to be entertaining so you've only yourself to blame :)
-
Permalink Reply by Roger Noren on
-
Ray Kemp said:
To get back to topic, I think you should mention that besides for looking cool, most people today would probably be disappointed of the sound from NS10:s. There are fans also, but quite a few sound engineers consider that a hyped product from the past, which very easily led to hollow mixes, since it tend to exaggerate midrange.Roger Noren said:Age has NOTHING to do with it. I became that when trying to enjoy midrange in a NS10!
NS10 were never designed to be entertaining so you've only yourself to blame :)
And Auratones... Sounds exactly like crap. I seen them in many studios, but hardly used. These were in fact design to sound exactly like crap in a calibrated way, but I just never understood the point in that.
-
Permalink Reply by Ray Kemp on
-
Roger,
Thanks very much for your input here. Although nothing you've said sways me from the premise in this subject I put up for discussion, I am happy that you and others post an opinion here. I welcome as many opinions as there are members in the forum but I do appreciate that the subject isn't that interesting to all.
Thanks
Ray
-
Permalink Reply by Albert De La Vega on -
Thanks for the info, I will give it a try.
And I'm no Scotsman, but I'll take up arms with you again those wicked evil Norsemen!!! Just kidding Roger and Per-Erik. I have heard their work and particularly Per-ERik's sounds very well mixed
Ray Kemp said:Albert De La Vega said:Hey Ray how are you?
I am a complete dunce when it comes to the technical aspects of the studio. What works best in your opinion as far as placement of computer monitors and speakers?
I have a pair of powered Event Studio monitors and a pair of flat screens. I dont know if it has anything to do with their relative proximity to each other, but I always hear hums/buzzing when I power up the speakers, computer and monitors (minimal but is is still there).
Hi Albert,
Although I didn't get the noises you're talking about, I did have my double screens close to my monitors but now since moving them back and with the monitors in clear air so to speak I get a far more open sound.
A word about my headphones......... Beyerdynamic DT 770's I do check my mixes with them but never mix with them.
My room is only 7ft x 11ft but my bluesky media desk system works a treat. My monitors only 4ft apart angled in towards me at 60deg sitting in my directors chair. My sub unit below the desk with the level set about -4db but the level adjustment made by using a few favourite CD tracks playing while I tweaked to my taste. A particular choice for such a test for me anyway is the Harry Connick Jr album Star Turtle
Ray
-
Permalink Reply by Per-Erik Rosqvist on -
Hi Albert.
I am definitely convinced Roger is better at discussing the technology behind the things covered in this disscusion than I, having more/longer experience than me.
But thanks, I do try to be get an output as professional as I can get.
/Per-Erik
Btw, evil or not, the danes (me being half-dane) never took scotland, but england, so it's just pointless aggressive rethorics from Ray as usual...
(kidding ;)
Albert De La Vega said:Thanks for the info, I will give it a try.
And I'm no Scotsman, but I'll take up arms with you again those wicked evil Norsemen!!! Just kidding Roger and Per-Erik. I have heard their work and particularly Per-ERik's sounds very well mixed
-
Permalink Reply by Ray Kemp on
-
Per-Erik Rosqvist said:Hi Albert.
I am definitely convinced Roger is better at discussing the technology behind the things covered in this disscusion than I, having more/longer experience than me.
But thanks, I do try to be get an output as professional as I can get.
/Per-Erik
Btw, evil or not, the danes (me being half-dane) never took scotland, but england, so it's just pointless aggressive rethorics from Ray as usual...
(kidding ;)
Ha well Per-Erik,
One can never be too old to learn, and you've taught me a lesson here in that one should never start a thread talking sensibly and then follow it by joking in subsequent replies. So, I'll leave you to do the jokes.
Ray
-
Permalink Reply by Deborah Young on -
Thank you, Ray. I recently bought some very inexpensive studio monitors (Alesis M1 Active 320 USB). Today will be my first time trying them. I have discovered that I'm not getting an accurate idea of the mix when I listen only through my studio headphones. So I figure these pro speakers (which sell for $100) were better than no speakers, and they have the added feater of allowing recording of anything going into the speakers. So the speakers act like a sound card when hooked to the computer.
-
Permalink Reply by Ray Kemp on
-
Deborah Young said:Thank you, Ray. I recently bought some very inexpensive studio monitors (Alesis M1 Active 320 USB). Today will be my first time trying them. I have discovered that I'm not getting an accurate idea of the mix when I listen only through my studio headphones. So I figure these pro speakers (which sell for $100) were better than no speakers, and they have the added feater of allowing recording of anything going into the speakers. So the speakers act like a sound card when hooked to the computer.
Hi Deborah,
Long time no talk!
You'll have to make sure you keep them well clear of any wall. They are ported at the back and although porting is not ideal (read text above) the effect on bass will be compounded if the speakers are not out in open space.
Ray
-
Permalink Reply by Deborah Young on
-
Yes, Ray. It's been a while. I was afraid the ported thing applied to these speakers because they have a bass boost switch. I hope I can get decent results by turning off that switch.
Ray Kemp said:Deborah Young said:Thank you, Ray. I recently bought some very inexpensive studio monitors (Alesis M1 Active 320 USB). Today will be my first time trying them. I have discovered that I'm not getting an accurate idea of the mix when I listen only through my studio headphones. So I figure these pro speakers (which sell for $100) were better than no speakers, and they have the added feater of allowing recording of anything going into the speakers. So the speakers act like a sound card when hooked to the computer.
Hi Deborah,
Long time no talk!
You'll have to make sure you keep them well clear of any wall. They are ported at the back and although porting is not ideal (read text above) the effect on bass will be compounded if the speakers are not out in open space.
Ray
About
© 2009 Created by Chris Merritt on Ning. Create a Ning Network!
