Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[David Ballenger]

Bob Olhsson wrote on Tue, 14 February 2006 18:59

You know the irony is that recording quality has arguably declined as monitors have improved. Back in the '60s everybody KNEW their 604s weren't particularly accurate so many of the best engineers simply avoided doing anything that was stupid even if it sounded ok on the 604s. I suspect most people trust monitors WAY too much today.

I know in my case that I believe this to be some good advice.  

My concept here as a musician/writer is to do my own shot at mix and mastering here in my project studio to the point that I'm confident I've got something worth taking it to the higher level.  

My idea is that when I have something that passes all the tests in my mind of a good song, performance, arrangement and basic tracking that I will take the basic tracks to an experienced professional facility to have it mixed objectively and the same for mastering.  I want that kind of objectivity.  Tools and experience.  I don't truthfully trust myself.  Also the feedback to tell me how my tracking is working.

[David Ballenger]

compasspnt wrote on Wed, 15 February 2006 00:12

DivideByZero wrote on Tue, 14 February 2006 20:17 Does anyone else have Yamaha NS1000s? Someone should.

I know I want a pair of those.  Looks like the perfect size.  

I hope the prices don't start going up before I can buy a pair.

I hope you can find replacement parts.

[Tidewater]

Spares are next to non-existant. The mid drivers are half the price of a set.

You may be able to fatigue them (?) but they love gobs of power, and take transients like a flak jacket.


M

[David Ballenger]

Thanks Miles, you guy's rock.

[Andy Simpson]

I have said this elsewhere and it does seem obvious, but how can a person expect to monitor the recording of a 120+ dB drumkit without a 120+dB monitor system?

Give me big horns.

I don't claim to have great monitors, but I can get by with my SRM450 mackies.
These can do >125dB (each), and can reproduce a drumkit very usefully.

They can also handle the dynamic range of an entire orchestra, which means that the tymps, brass and general dynamics of the orchestra can hit as hard and real as they do in life.

They give me a very serious thirst for dynamics, whereas most speakers I've heard make me reach for the limiters.....

These are not great speakers, but I can just about manage with them. They have serious headroom and I simply cannot go back to little tweeter speakers.
Yesterday I was finishing the master processing of some orchestral recordings I'd done recently. The recordings had >60dB dynamic range - from solo cello to full orchestra ff.

At -60dB I required the realistic listening level of a single cello at pp AND I needed the extra 60+dB on top of that. That is a very very serious requirement.

And these speakers took me very close to representing an entire orchestra (and space), from a single cello to the whole explosive crescendo.

My ears tell me that these horn speakers handle the time-domain (impulse response) much much better than most inefficient direct radiators.

I suspect that in the last 30+ years we have sacrificed the time-domain for the frequency domain (yes, I know that they are two faces of the same coin, but in measurement and interpretation they differ massively).

Andy

[Bob Olhsson]

Let me offer a little historical perspective.

In the 1960s monitors were chosen for their ability to reveal musical issues so that another take (and live mix) could be done immediately while the musicians were still set up out in the studio. If a monitor didn't lead to rude surprises at home when people listened to their seven-and-a-halfs after the session, translation was considered acceptable. Most of these monitor systems consisted of one large loudspeaker system per recording track.

As the overdub/assembly production approach took over with the introduction of 8 and 16 track recording, mixing became more of a challenge because performers were listening to headphones rather than to a live band and rude surprises at home became lots more common. This led to the use of alternate "reference" monitors. Typically this was a four-inch radio speaker and/or a 6x9 inch car radio speaker along with a pair of whatever happened to be the best selling consumer stereo bookshelf speakers.

By the mid '70s most studios had taken on the challenge of adapting large monitors to the need for fewer surprises. This involved everything from the use of equalization to radical approaches to control room design. In many cases the cure turned out to be far worse than the disease so mixers came to rely on their "reference monitors" more than anybody would have dreamed ten years earlier. This was especially true since most had also begun working as free-lancers in a wide variety of studios.

Today we have learned a lot about how to build rooms and mains that translate well however the practice of mixing mostly with reference monitors and then fixing any problems they introduce in mastering lingers on. Hopefully people will begin to learn that this isn't the only way to work.

[maxim]

great insight, bob

what about the idea of monitoring through the final sources, ie car speakers, ipod, boombox, hi-fi etc?

it is helpful, if only, for 'referencing'

[Tidewater]

Tens-n-Tones! (Aura that is)


M

[Andy Simpson]

Bob Olhsson wrote on Sat, 18 February 2006 17:52

Let me offer a little historical perspective. In the 1960s monitors were chosen for their ability to reveal musical issues so that another take (and live mix) could be done immediately while the musicians were still set up out in the studio. If a monitor didn't lead to rude surprises at home when people listened to their seven-and-a-halfs after the session, translation was considered acceptable. Most of these monitor systems consisted of one large loudspeaker system per recording track. As the overdub/assembly production approach took over with the introduction of 8 and 16 track recording, mixing became more of a challenge because performers were listening to headphones rather than to a live band and rude surprises at home became lots more common. This led to the use of alternate "reference" monitors. Typically this was a four-inch radio speaker and/or a 6x9 inch car radio speaker along with a pair of whatever happened to be the best selling consumer stereo bookshelf speakers. By the mid '70s most studios had taken on the challenge of adapting large monitors to the need for fewer surprises. This involved everything from the use of equalization to radical approaches to control room design. In many cases the cure turned out to be far worse than the disease so mixers came to rely on their "reference monitors" more than anybody would have dreamed ten years earlier. This was especially true since most had also begun working as free-lancers in a wide variety of studios. Today we have learned a lot about how to build rooms and mains that translate well however the practice of mixing mostly with reference monitors and then fixing any problems they introduce in mastering lingers on. Hopefully people will begin to learn that this isn't the only way to work.

That is an interesting perspective, Bob.
'musical details' - not 'frequency content'.....

And it brings the point home that in those mono days a single speaker was (presumably) capable of representing the musical output of a whole band, even a whole orchestra.
Which is a feat that few modern speakers are capable of managing, let alone any kind of nearfields.

Can anyone imagine mixing on a single ns10?

Or for a more direct question to the panel:
if you had to pick a single speaker to represent the entire mix, what would it be?

I would be looking at one of those enourmous 'full-range' folded horns - one of those 10ft mothers.

Andy

[Tidewater]

andy_simpson wrote on Sun, 19 February 2006 19:06

Can anyone imagine mixing on a single ns10? Andy

Exactly, but yes! Not the answer you were expecting.

You set the outs to mono, get all your sounds, get all your tails tucked in, and get the balance, then go stereo, and pan til it's pretty. Works GREAT!


M

[Fibes]

I mixed a demo for TimeBomb records on a single NS-10. The backup monitors were out for repair and we blew the right side when the drummer decided to unplug a mic when he was done tracking. The vocalist was leaving in the morning to go to LA so...

It sounded great 'cause I didn't do anything after that point.

[peter martin]

Been reading the forums for a few years now, never setup and account. So here we go, my first post...

I completely agree with Brad's 'slap' on page 3 of this post.

Very long rant here, but I've got to say it....

Why do people think money = good music/sonics?

I've worked on all sorts of near fields, and even the big Pioneer TAD systems with beautiful JBL horns for a while too. I loved those  more than any other sound reproduction device ever. Making music on them on the other hand, was very difficult to me.

After extensive use on various Genelecs, and my Dynaudio M1s I've settled on a used pair of sh*t NS5s, and a Sunfire sub.
My Dynaudio and Genelecs have been collecting dust now for about 6 months. After I switched to the NSh*t, my mixes are far more musical, and translate to ANY enviorment to TV, club, hi-fi, and car play.

People that tell me they spend $80000 on a pair of monitors have to0 much money and not enough music in their brain. Granted an accurate reproduction system is necessary for certain applications like mastering, but mixing and what not???

Let me also bring another case in point to these naysayers of the cheap speaker mentality. Remember its just music brothers, I think people get too carried away on what they 'think' they need these days, and that's the problem. I've heard amazing blues recordings done by a couple of guys drinking whiskey in a shack with one mic.

Another point, my best friend Derek Howell is very well known and a very well respected in the electronic music dance scene. He's traveled the world over, garnished massive respect from producers like Junkie XL, to Juno Reactor guy... His stuff sounds hands down simply amazing musical and sonically. He has been featured on a a ton of quality dance music compilations that have total sold well over 100,000 units. What does he monitor on?? Not JBLs, not Genelecs, and he doesn't have some twit in a lab coat making his stuff sound good...

Creative labs speakers, with the crap sub. Yes a $100 pair of speakers, his stuff sounds far more musical and dynamic than most rock music I hear these days. Like I said, the sales speak for themselves in his case....

Whatever works as Ross would say, and do what you gotta do with what your limited with. You can make million dollar mixes with a $1000 computer and $100 worth of speakers... Its been proved time and time again in the industry I'm so accustomed to.

Keep worrying about your monitors, we'll keep making music. Its just more fun that way. I've given up on the magik gear, speaker, plugin way of thinking...

Sorry if I come off as a bit brash, but as Brad said sometimes you just gotta slap some people. I just find it so ludicrous people go to such extensive lengths. Why not spend $40,000 grand on speakers and give the rest away to charity. I can be totally wrong here, and bash away if you think I'm unprofessional and off base. I don't really want to step on toes or administer any disrespect to people that have been working at it for more years than I've been alive. I'm just trying to say my peace in all of this.

Love and respect to everyone.

Glad to finally be apart of the raps.
Peter Martin
Dither Records

[compasspnt]

Welcome to the Forums Peter!

Quite a first post there!

I think you have many insightful things to say about this.  'Whatever Works' for any one person should be what they use, regardless of cost.  Results will speak for themselves.

While I prefer a bit "more" speaker than an NS-10 (actually, my faves for years were the NS-044's) these days, I do believe that, given a few minutes to get used to them, I (or anyone competent)  could do a perfectly fine mix on almost anything.  It just comes down to balance.

Best regards.  Keep posting.

[Ronny]

compasspnt wrote on Tue, 21 February 2006 16:43

Welcome to the Forums Peter! Quite a first post there! I think you have many insightful things to say about this.  'Whatever Works' for any one person should be what they use, regardless of cost.  Results will speak for themselves. While I prefer a bit "more" speaker than an NS-10 (actually, my faves for years were the NS-044's) these days, I do believe that, given a few minutes to get used to them, I (or anyone competent)  could do a perfectly fine mix on almost anything.  It just comes down to balance. Best regards.  Keep posting.

I agree as well. Although not my faves, there were many hit records mixed on NS10's, so obviously a major factor is the ear and how an engineer relates his system to the real world. I'm continually being amazed at what some of these home recordists are doing on the little all in one multi-trackers. No doubt some good stuff on $1000 computers and cheapo monitors as well. Yes a lot of crap too, but it only takes one great mix to prove that it can be done. The sonic quality versus cost ratio has narrowed quite a bit these past two decades.

[max cooper]

andy_simpson wrote on Sun, 19 February 2006 18:06

.... And it brings the point home that in those mono days a single speaker was (presumably) capable of representing the musical output of a whole band, even a whole orchestra. Which is a feat that few modern speakers are capable of managing, let alone any kind of nearfields.

Ahh...  and notice that it says "single speaker" and not single enclosure.  I'll admit that I'm one of those weirdos who listens to single driver speakers at home and wonders if we lost something when everything went two-way +.

Hey, great thread, guys.  Warts 'n all.