Thanks for the reply.
1)Whilst “The best possible translation comes from using neutral monitors” makes sense on one hand, it’s also just a belief. Unless there are some studies into that?
2)For decades, the best way to translate vocals in a mix across a broad range of playback devices was using NS-10s. During that period of time there were many other speakers that were more neutral, but simply not as good at the job.
3) Another belief is that “the best possible translation comes from monitors that best highlight the problems”.
I personally think somewhere in between works best.
My Amphions are a bit pronounced in the 200-500 hz range and again around the 6-12k range. They are great at being able to eq out muddy sounding mid bass, because they push it forwards a little. Same with any upper end harshness.
Perhaps it’s just lucky that those frequencies can sound particularly bad on cheap speakers, car stereos etc.
I guess that’s why most studios have a few pairs of speakers. Different tools for different jobs. Multiple perspectives etc.
1) Well it's quite simple is it not? If the speakers you are working on, and the ones I'm listening to have a similar sound signature, it's quite obvious that I will be hearing something similar to what you are. There's of course more to it than that, but the same variables would apply to any other monitor, with the added downside of them being tonally different.
2) Are you sure though? The NS-10 was popularized as the engineers of the day assumed (wrongfully or not) that it represented (along with the aurotone) the
average consumer loudspeaker. At the time, this was perhaps the case, and the goal was to make sure source material didn't sound too offiensive on the average loudspeaker. These days the situation is quite different, and loudspeakers are on average far more neutral and extended than was the case in the 60's, 70's and 80's. Now, if there were truth to the latter part of your statement, recordings would hold up to this day and there would a level of consistency - this is absolutely not the case and personally I don't understand why people are still defending this reasoning.
3) Again, how so? If you would playback a recording on a dozen flawed loudspeakers, you would find new 'problems' to correct each and every time. Monitors superimposing their own problems on recordings is not the way to move forward. If a problem is inaudible on an objectively neutral monitor, there is simply no problem to correct. And while fixing an otherwise harmless issue, more often than not one loses sight of the bigger picture.
If we keep adjusting otherwise good recordings to mask the flaws of bad consumer loudspeakers, no progress can be made. This doen't mean every monitor, even the objectively good ones will sound the same. There's so many other factors in play - so you don't have to worry about your creative freedom. But I think we can agree that the goal is to produce better sounding recordings?