FireEmblem
Active Member
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2025
- Messages
- 142
- Likes
- 23
Intro disclaimer, I'm not here to bash on studio equipment. It in fact sounds fantastic and is a lot of fun, but I want to talk about the analytic side of things.
Short about my background: I've been producing music for 10 years, released multiple bestseller soundsets for synths, used by big names in the industry and also worked for one of the biggest audio companies in the world as sound designer and composer. I won't reveal my identity though, before that question arises. But just so you know that there's actual experience behind what's coming, and that the quality of my work is appreciated by major industry players and their quality demands.
Now mind you, all these years I've been working with a pair of Superlux HD681 headphones and a Logitech Z533 speaker system. As most of you know, knowing your system and what it sounds like is the most important part. As a sound designer, my ears are trained to catch even the most minor details and I understand very well why things sound the way they sound, so that perhaps helps a lot.
However, the Logitech Z533 speaker system is obviously a consumer system (a good one though, extremely good sound for the price imo, and the sub really hits hard) and the Superlux HD681 are very popular and good, but not on the level of something like a Sennheiser HD650 in terms of stereo image or frequency response.
But here's the thing: All my mixes translate well to any system. No matter if I listen to it back on a single small bluetooth box, my earbuds or at other people's consumer systems. They sound the way I created them, I never listen to them back somewhere else and spot some big differences that could be pinned down to let's say my system's pre-EQ or room coloring or whatever.
Recently I've ordered the Adam T5V, T7V, T8V and the T10S subwoofer and listened back to my mixes: They all still sound the way I created them. No artifacts popping up that weren't unhearable before, no nothing. Also checked them on the Sennheiser HD650 I recently purchased: Same song and dance. It's all the familiar sound, no surprises.
Now of course the HD650 are muuuch more pleasant to listen to than the Superlux HD681. The sound is darker (which some call "warmer"), the stereo stage is much broader, it's way easier to tell instrument locations apart or separate details and listen to two or three different things in the same time without them mixing up as much as in the HD681's by Superlux or my consumer system, which is of course much more narrow.
And yes, the Adam T5V + T10s just sound lovely together. Once again, no surprises, no artifacts, nothing that was unheard before - just a much better stereo image, much more fun listening to music because everything is so clear and right in front of you. It's like virtual reality but just for the ears.
So what's this thread about?
Well.. for mixing purposes, I begin to question that "neutral" holds the importance that it's given. Let me elaborate on this:
First of all, I believe that our ears adjust within seconds to a system. When I switch between HD681 and HD650, it's always a quick shock, as if you went with above your belly-button into cold water. But just like that feeling fades within seconds, it fades with headphones.
The brain adjusts, and now I am in the sonic world of either headphone. The Superlux stop sounding bright, and the Sennheiser stop sounding dark. That is, I believe, because proportions are what matters.
Many people are afraid headphones that add colouring like the Superlux HD681 will make them over or undercompensate for some aspects. But our brains don't just get the info: "hey, that choir is too bright, I have to tone it down." Our brains analyse the entire track and then attributes like "too bright" or "too dark" [...], are made in perspective of the entire track.
So when I am in the sonic world of the Superlux, yes, the choir is much more brighter. But it never makes me wanting to tone it down, because after a few seconds in, I have acclimated with that sonic world, and because other things are X:Y times quieter, the relationship is preserved. And that exactly, so I believe, makes me not perceive that choir as too bright.
Conversely, when I'm in the HD650, I don't feel the desire to bump up the choir because it suddenly sounds much darker. Because everything got darker, and compared to the other, much darker instruments, the choir still appears bright.
And this is why I believe colouring isn't that bad as many people make it to be. Andrew Scheps by the way is mixing on a 100 dollar pair of coloured consumer headphones by Sony.
Also, my room isn't treated. I have some curtains and a big bed and a couch though, but I as well have many reflections going on. Not terrible ones, they're just there. But I have no difficulties with hearing the actual sound, I don't feel like reflections blur anything. Again, being a sound designer who spent thousands of hours with finetuning even the smalles clicks and artifcats might help with this, but I don't even think this is a requirement, I think our brains are very capable.
If you want another big name to back this up, Tom Holkenborg mixes in an untreated room. It's a big room though, but if he claps, the reverb slaps. He's saying that people in the real world will be listening to the music in rooms like this, and he believes if he can make his mix sound tight there, it will sound tight everywhere. And I agree. (Scheps by the way also dislikes room treatement, he has some curtains hung up, that's it). Of course this only counts for rooms that are just naturally good enough. I'm not denying that reflections can make it extremly difficult or impossible to mix if people are in a very small, square and/or mainly empty room. But naturally good, just full of normal, everyday furniture, is still a huge difference to acoustically treated rooms with thousands of dollars worth of absorbers.
Which brings me to the core of this post:
Let's say I use the most neutral speaker in the most neutral room ever (not dead, but perfectly treated). When will people ever again listen to my music in such an environment? Exactly, perhaps never.
So I'm working on a track, and it's as flat as possible, and I go on and start to fill that canvas. Now I boost the bass, and I boost the treble, and I boost here, and I cut there.. now I ship that track out, and 99% of people out there are listening to it on a smiley-curved device. They will end up with rumbling bass and harsh highs. So after the occasional "consumer mix check", you'd go down to your perfect studio environment and compensate a bit back for that.
Now let's view this from the other side: If I mix on my consumer speakers with a bass boost and a boost in the treble, I will most likely be "oh, treble and bass are already very present, I don't need to boost that much".
People would argue at this point, as you can read it in countless threads about the subject: "And this is where it goes wrong. Now your music will sound bass-weak and dark on some systems".
Let's adress this with a few thoughts:
1) Studio monitors sound more neutral, with fewer bass and treble. So on these you'd let's say add +3dB in these regions, just so we got some number to work with. That +3dB would amount up to +6dB with the smiley-curve added by consumer systems. But, when I'm mixing on my consumer system, at +6dB I already feel "damn, there's a lot of energy, this doesn't need more". So I'd naturally stop somewhere, where when you subtract the pre-EQ of the consumer system, you'll end up with +3dB at the studio monitors. It's the same thing, just from the other side. I hope you get the idea I want to convey.
2) There's still the relationship thing between different frequencies. You can't just undermix bass and treble just because your consumer system 'made you believe there's already so much of it, while it in fact isn't'. You still have other parameters to judge, like how do these low toms sound compared to the choir. How well can the mids unfold against the top and bottom. Are things properly adjusted with each other. And for the whole thing there's your listening experience on that device. You'd immediately notice if your mix sounds totally off from what you usually are listening to. So there's some sort of natural framework / limitation that prevents you from over or underdoing things. I believe if that happens in a significant amount, that's just due to lack of experience and a big expensive studio monitor system isn't necessarily the answer.
3) Another system might have fewer bass and treble boost than yours, so on that system it will sound weaker in these regions. The cool thing is though, that the person listening on that device 24/7 is used to this! For that person it won't sound off, it's exactly what that person would expect. It will only stick out to you if you compare it side by side with an over-analytic intention. But that's a reality only you have got access to. For the listeners only one side exists, and that's the one in the sonic world they're used to.
The same goes for the stereo image: Like I said, it's much, much broader and more enjoyable on studio monitors, no question. For pure listening, I'd absolutely prefer this. And for mixing, it's for sure good to be able to tell your stuff apart better. But as a matter of fact, it's not like you can barely tell everything apart on consumer gear either. I have no difficulties hearing and adjusting that viola on the right side while the choir plays in the left and the piano rains down somewhere else from the "top". It's just not that sexy, but it totally works without causing any problems. And if I really want to dip into the stereo field, I'm using my pair of headphones.
People often say here: "that's another blunder! Your stereo image won't translate well to the real world!"
But if you've listened to a lot of music in headphones, you naturally got a feeling for what a balanced stereo image sounds like in headphones. It's again the experience about proportions. Of course you're able to tell apart whether or not your cello plays in the super-far right, the far right, the right, the middle right, the close right[...].
Sure, you'll have another listen on your speakers and adjust a bit, that's just part of the process; again nothing terrible. And it's nothing that you can avoid with studio monitors either, because the fantastic stereo image may or may not unfold well on a more narrow consumer system.
Stereo balance laid out in a place with a lot of stage may translate badly when that stage becomes smaller. Now spacing needs some adjustments so that instruments use that little space more efficient. Again, my studio monitors don't really deliver me any real advantage here.
And that's the thing I'm getting at: Why would it be beneficial to mix something in a place that is so much different from the place customers will listen to it? They won't listen to it in a perfectly treated room, it has to sound tight with normal living-room reverbations. It doesn't matter if the track sounds a bit brighter, darker, bigger, smaller, harsher, whatever in room A, B, C, D and E, because people IRL don't jump from room to room and do side-to-side-comparisons on different systems.
They listen back to music on the systems they know, and any colouration happening on these systems is something they're used to. If we mix properly, which means of course not doing stuff like boosting or cutting frequencies frequently by +12 or -12dB as some beginners might tend to do, and where studio monitors wouldn't help either, our mixes will sound close-enough to what we mixed them like on any system. The decisions will naturally be in some sort of sweetspot that encapsulates the entire landscape of systems.
So I'd argue, and yes I'm aware that might spark some controversy, that studio monitors aren't necessarily better for mixing than any other device. They're more pleasant to work with and imo they make enjoying music of course easier, but in actual practice it doesn't make any difference. Or to put this differently: Any positive difference that might occur is perhaps either a random incident or a placebo effect.
Just like many people swear they suddenly hear much more width and space and whatnot when they're using dedicated headphone amps for headphones that don't really need one, or when they use bigger and more expensive headphone amps. This psychological phenomen is also well documented with lots of blind tests. There was also one shared here in the forum where people had much trouble telling the $1000 Neumann speaker apart from the $150 JBL one (IIRC).
Don't get me wrong: All these speakers have great sound. And that in itself can be advantageous to work with. But when it comes to precision, colouring and such, I think the advantages are very overstated.
The only, and I really mean the only thing I could spot on the Adams that I couldn't spot on any of my other devices is, that a bassline that is usually heavily compressed and sidechained to the kick, and that usually sounds very tight and snappy, sounded more open and "clean" on the Adam. Might be because the Adam has a much better driver that it can present that in much more clarity. But the HD650 doesn't show this, so maybe the Adam driver is just too sloppy and can't catch up with the snappyness.
Either way: Does it matter? No, not really. The effect, the vibe of that part is still absolutely there. Whether with the super snappy and gritty compression or with the more clear and crisp one. It still tells its story in terms of sound. And I think that's true for anything else in music that could show minor differences, when you compare it analytically side by side.
Now I'm looking forward to your replies, because I really thought a lot about this subject, especially recently, and got an increasing strong urge to share this. Please keep it civil, just want to provide another perspective on the subject
Cheers!
Edit: Might be clever to add these two videos here early.
Short about my background: I've been producing music for 10 years, released multiple bestseller soundsets for synths, used by big names in the industry and also worked for one of the biggest audio companies in the world as sound designer and composer. I won't reveal my identity though, before that question arises. But just so you know that there's actual experience behind what's coming, and that the quality of my work is appreciated by major industry players and their quality demands.
Now mind you, all these years I've been working with a pair of Superlux HD681 headphones and a Logitech Z533 speaker system. As most of you know, knowing your system and what it sounds like is the most important part. As a sound designer, my ears are trained to catch even the most minor details and I understand very well why things sound the way they sound, so that perhaps helps a lot.
However, the Logitech Z533 speaker system is obviously a consumer system (a good one though, extremely good sound for the price imo, and the sub really hits hard) and the Superlux HD681 are very popular and good, but not on the level of something like a Sennheiser HD650 in terms of stereo image or frequency response.
But here's the thing: All my mixes translate well to any system. No matter if I listen to it back on a single small bluetooth box, my earbuds or at other people's consumer systems. They sound the way I created them, I never listen to them back somewhere else and spot some big differences that could be pinned down to let's say my system's pre-EQ or room coloring or whatever.
Recently I've ordered the Adam T5V, T7V, T8V and the T10S subwoofer and listened back to my mixes: They all still sound the way I created them. No artifacts popping up that weren't unhearable before, no nothing. Also checked them on the Sennheiser HD650 I recently purchased: Same song and dance. It's all the familiar sound, no surprises.
Now of course the HD650 are muuuch more pleasant to listen to than the Superlux HD681. The sound is darker (which some call "warmer"), the stereo stage is much broader, it's way easier to tell instrument locations apart or separate details and listen to two or three different things in the same time without them mixing up as much as in the HD681's by Superlux or my consumer system, which is of course much more narrow.
And yes, the Adam T5V + T10s just sound lovely together. Once again, no surprises, no artifacts, nothing that was unheard before - just a much better stereo image, much more fun listening to music because everything is so clear and right in front of you. It's like virtual reality but just for the ears.
So what's this thread about?
Well.. for mixing purposes, I begin to question that "neutral" holds the importance that it's given. Let me elaborate on this:
First of all, I believe that our ears adjust within seconds to a system. When I switch between HD681 and HD650, it's always a quick shock, as if you went with above your belly-button into cold water. But just like that feeling fades within seconds, it fades with headphones.
The brain adjusts, and now I am in the sonic world of either headphone. The Superlux stop sounding bright, and the Sennheiser stop sounding dark. That is, I believe, because proportions are what matters.
Many people are afraid headphones that add colouring like the Superlux HD681 will make them over or undercompensate for some aspects. But our brains don't just get the info: "hey, that choir is too bright, I have to tone it down." Our brains analyse the entire track and then attributes like "too bright" or "too dark" [...], are made in perspective of the entire track.
So when I am in the sonic world of the Superlux, yes, the choir is much more brighter. But it never makes me wanting to tone it down, because after a few seconds in, I have acclimated with that sonic world, and because other things are X:Y times quieter, the relationship is preserved. And that exactly, so I believe, makes me not perceive that choir as too bright.
Conversely, when I'm in the HD650, I don't feel the desire to bump up the choir because it suddenly sounds much darker. Because everything got darker, and compared to the other, much darker instruments, the choir still appears bright.
And this is why I believe colouring isn't that bad as many people make it to be. Andrew Scheps by the way is mixing on a 100 dollar pair of coloured consumer headphones by Sony.
Also, my room isn't treated. I have some curtains and a big bed and a couch though, but I as well have many reflections going on. Not terrible ones, they're just there. But I have no difficulties with hearing the actual sound, I don't feel like reflections blur anything. Again, being a sound designer who spent thousands of hours with finetuning even the smalles clicks and artifcats might help with this, but I don't even think this is a requirement, I think our brains are very capable.
If you want another big name to back this up, Tom Holkenborg mixes in an untreated room. It's a big room though, but if he claps, the reverb slaps. He's saying that people in the real world will be listening to the music in rooms like this, and he believes if he can make his mix sound tight there, it will sound tight everywhere. And I agree. (Scheps by the way also dislikes room treatement, he has some curtains hung up, that's it). Of course this only counts for rooms that are just naturally good enough. I'm not denying that reflections can make it extremly difficult or impossible to mix if people are in a very small, square and/or mainly empty room. But naturally good, just full of normal, everyday furniture, is still a huge difference to acoustically treated rooms with thousands of dollars worth of absorbers.
Which brings me to the core of this post:
Let's say I use the most neutral speaker in the most neutral room ever (not dead, but perfectly treated). When will people ever again listen to my music in such an environment? Exactly, perhaps never.
So I'm working on a track, and it's as flat as possible, and I go on and start to fill that canvas. Now I boost the bass, and I boost the treble, and I boost here, and I cut there.. now I ship that track out, and 99% of people out there are listening to it on a smiley-curved device. They will end up with rumbling bass and harsh highs. So after the occasional "consumer mix check", you'd go down to your perfect studio environment and compensate a bit back for that.
Now let's view this from the other side: If I mix on my consumer speakers with a bass boost and a boost in the treble, I will most likely be "oh, treble and bass are already very present, I don't need to boost that much".
People would argue at this point, as you can read it in countless threads about the subject: "And this is where it goes wrong. Now your music will sound bass-weak and dark on some systems".
Let's adress this with a few thoughts:
1) Studio monitors sound more neutral, with fewer bass and treble. So on these you'd let's say add +3dB in these regions, just so we got some number to work with. That +3dB would amount up to +6dB with the smiley-curve added by consumer systems. But, when I'm mixing on my consumer system, at +6dB I already feel "damn, there's a lot of energy, this doesn't need more". So I'd naturally stop somewhere, where when you subtract the pre-EQ of the consumer system, you'll end up with +3dB at the studio monitors. It's the same thing, just from the other side. I hope you get the idea I want to convey.
2) There's still the relationship thing between different frequencies. You can't just undermix bass and treble just because your consumer system 'made you believe there's already so much of it, while it in fact isn't'. You still have other parameters to judge, like how do these low toms sound compared to the choir. How well can the mids unfold against the top and bottom. Are things properly adjusted with each other. And for the whole thing there's your listening experience on that device. You'd immediately notice if your mix sounds totally off from what you usually are listening to. So there's some sort of natural framework / limitation that prevents you from over or underdoing things. I believe if that happens in a significant amount, that's just due to lack of experience and a big expensive studio monitor system isn't necessarily the answer.
3) Another system might have fewer bass and treble boost than yours, so on that system it will sound weaker in these regions. The cool thing is though, that the person listening on that device 24/7 is used to this! For that person it won't sound off, it's exactly what that person would expect. It will only stick out to you if you compare it side by side with an over-analytic intention. But that's a reality only you have got access to. For the listeners only one side exists, and that's the one in the sonic world they're used to.
The same goes for the stereo image: Like I said, it's much, much broader and more enjoyable on studio monitors, no question. For pure listening, I'd absolutely prefer this. And for mixing, it's for sure good to be able to tell your stuff apart better. But as a matter of fact, it's not like you can barely tell everything apart on consumer gear either. I have no difficulties hearing and adjusting that viola on the right side while the choir plays in the left and the piano rains down somewhere else from the "top". It's just not that sexy, but it totally works without causing any problems. And if I really want to dip into the stereo field, I'm using my pair of headphones.
People often say here: "that's another blunder! Your stereo image won't translate well to the real world!"
But if you've listened to a lot of music in headphones, you naturally got a feeling for what a balanced stereo image sounds like in headphones. It's again the experience about proportions. Of course you're able to tell apart whether or not your cello plays in the super-far right, the far right, the right, the middle right, the close right[...].
Sure, you'll have another listen on your speakers and adjust a bit, that's just part of the process; again nothing terrible. And it's nothing that you can avoid with studio monitors either, because the fantastic stereo image may or may not unfold well on a more narrow consumer system.
Stereo balance laid out in a place with a lot of stage may translate badly when that stage becomes smaller. Now spacing needs some adjustments so that instruments use that little space more efficient. Again, my studio monitors don't really deliver me any real advantage here.
And that's the thing I'm getting at: Why would it be beneficial to mix something in a place that is so much different from the place customers will listen to it? They won't listen to it in a perfectly treated room, it has to sound tight with normal living-room reverbations. It doesn't matter if the track sounds a bit brighter, darker, bigger, smaller, harsher, whatever in room A, B, C, D and E, because people IRL don't jump from room to room and do side-to-side-comparisons on different systems.
They listen back to music on the systems they know, and any colouration happening on these systems is something they're used to. If we mix properly, which means of course not doing stuff like boosting or cutting frequencies frequently by +12 or -12dB as some beginners might tend to do, and where studio monitors wouldn't help either, our mixes will sound close-enough to what we mixed them like on any system. The decisions will naturally be in some sort of sweetspot that encapsulates the entire landscape of systems.
So I'd argue, and yes I'm aware that might spark some controversy, that studio monitors aren't necessarily better for mixing than any other device. They're more pleasant to work with and imo they make enjoying music of course easier, but in actual practice it doesn't make any difference. Or to put this differently: Any positive difference that might occur is perhaps either a random incident or a placebo effect.
Just like many people swear they suddenly hear much more width and space and whatnot when they're using dedicated headphone amps for headphones that don't really need one, or when they use bigger and more expensive headphone amps. This psychological phenomen is also well documented with lots of blind tests. There was also one shared here in the forum where people had much trouble telling the $1000 Neumann speaker apart from the $150 JBL one (IIRC).
Don't get me wrong: All these speakers have great sound. And that in itself can be advantageous to work with. But when it comes to precision, colouring and such, I think the advantages are very overstated.
The only, and I really mean the only thing I could spot on the Adams that I couldn't spot on any of my other devices is, that a bassline that is usually heavily compressed and sidechained to the kick, and that usually sounds very tight and snappy, sounded more open and "clean" on the Adam. Might be because the Adam has a much better driver that it can present that in much more clarity. But the HD650 doesn't show this, so maybe the Adam driver is just too sloppy and can't catch up with the snappyness.
Either way: Does it matter? No, not really. The effect, the vibe of that part is still absolutely there. Whether with the super snappy and gritty compression or with the more clear and crisp one. It still tells its story in terms of sound. And I think that's true for anything else in music that could show minor differences, when you compare it analytically side by side.
Now I'm looking forward to your replies, because I really thought a lot about this subject, especially recently, and got an increasing strong urge to share this. Please keep it civil, just want to provide another perspective on the subject
Cheers!Edit: Might be clever to add these two videos here early.
Last edited:
