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 -
AND!
I've just moved my computer screens down and back away from my monitor speakers and it has made a gigantic difference the stereo imaging. I'll have to remix and remaster most of my tunes to correct the issues I've inadvertently recorded thinking everything 'hunky dory'.
see here
-
Permalink Reply by Anne Goodwin on -
I am not yet into professional recording Ray but the information you have provided here is information that I shall keep in mind if I ever go in that direction. I didn't know that special monitors/speakers are required and you have provided very detailed information here about what to shop for if one wishes to make professional recordings. Thanks.
-
Permalink Reply by Roger Noren on -
But keep in my that room acoustics are just as important as good speakers, some would say even more important.
If you don't have a room large enough, it is very hard to get anything sound representative in the bass region, and acoustic treatment like bass traps will not help. Believe me, my studio is like that. If you have a room large enough, you will probably have to treat it acoustically for many $$ before your speakers will sound as intended. A rule of the thumb say as much as for the speakers.
In professonal studios you are forced to rely on monitors, because you have to present the result to costumers. In a personal studio were only you work, good studio headphones might be a better solution. If you are old in the game and have built your experience upon monitor mixing, you will protest against this statement. But if you listen to music in headphones primarily (some people do!) then headphone mixing can deliver a good result. A pair of cans for let's say 300 EUR will give you something that you'll have to pay 5 times as much compaired to as good sounding monitors and acoustic treatment.
-
Permalink Reply by Ray Kemp on
-
Roger,
I was with you through your first paragraph but, your comments about headphones is just plain nonsense and quite frankly age has nothing to do with it.
-
Permalink Reply by Simon Godden on -
I agree. In fact apair of monitors is the next item on my list (after I've forked out £70 for Notion, of course)
-
Permalink Reply by Roger Noren on
-
Ray,
If you only have a small room available, you still insist to invest a lot of money in good speakers and acoustic treatment then?
I don't believe what I wrote was nonsense, it is an opinion, and I know people doing a good work with headphones.
What I react in your writing is the almost total focus on good speakers, but I think everyone should be aware of that good speakers in a bad room is waste of money. Then it is much better to invest in good headphones.
Ray Kemp said:Roger,
I was with you through your first paragraph but, your comments about headphones is just plain nonsense and quite frankly age has nothing to do with it.
-
Permalink Reply by Albert De La Vega on -
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).
I would have to agree with you regarding the headphones. I have an excellent pair that I only use when I want to keep playing and my daughter has to go to sleep. But they are useless from a mixing point of view because all of the volume levels for the each instrument sounds different
Ray Kemp said:AND!
I've just moved my computer screens down and back away from my monitor speakers and it has made a gigantic difference the stereo imaging. I'll have to remix and remaster most of my tunes to correct the issues I've inadvertently recorded thinking everything 'hunky dory'.
see here
-
Permalink Reply by Ray Kemp on
-
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 -
Roger is right. Just give it up Ray.
Ray Kemp said:Roger,
I was with you through your first paragraph but, your comments about headphones is just plain nonsense and quite frankly age has nothing to do with it.
-
Permalink Reply by Ray Kemp on
-
Per-Erik Rosqvist said:Roger is right. Just give it up Ray.
ok ok
you norsemen can stick together raping and pillaging
-
Permalink Reply by Per-Erik Rosqvist on
-
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.
No hard feelings I hope Ray?
:)
/Per
Ray Kemp said:Per-Erik Rosqvist said:Roger is right. Just give it up Ray.
ok ok
you norsemen can stick together raping and pillaging
-
Permalink Reply by Roger Noren on
-
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.
Ray Kemp said
My room is only 7ft x 11ft ....:
About
© 2009 Created by Chris Merritt on Ning. Create a Ning Network!
