Studio Monitors & The Circle of Confusion- What We Know/Don’t Know

[Mart68]

What's your point here? That it shouldn't be called mixing engineer or sound engineer? In that case, I think that's an uphill battle. That's the name of the profession, what's the point of debating that?

I think the point is that its a creative process so there's no right or wrong way to do it. The job title may suggest otherwise if you think of, say, a structural engineer where if he does it wrong the bridge collapses.

Example - 'Raw Power' - Iggy Pop & The Stooges. Two mixes, some prefer the original Bowie mix, some the later Iggy remix. (Bowie for me). No right or wrong.

 

[Sigberg Audio]

I think the point is that its a creative process so there's no right or wrong way to do it. The job title may suggest otherwise if you think of, say, a structural engineer where if he does it wrong the bridge colla
Example - 'Raw Power' - Iggy Pop & The Stooges. Two mixes, some prefer the original Bowie mix, some the later Iggy remix. (Bowie for me). No right or wrong.

I think that is both right and wrong. You can't just throw a random guy with no education behind a mixing desk and then he can be creative, and then say "Oh, there's no right or wrong" despite him making an absolute trainwreck of a mix, if he can even get something together at all.

Being placed behind a large studio desk if you haven't seen one before is like being put in the pilot seat of a 747 and being asked to fly the plane. You would have absolutely no idea what to do - there's literally hundreds of buttons and sliders and you don't know what anything does.

Secondly, this creative process is a collaboration with a band, and you can't cater to the wishes of that band without understanding pretty well how the mixing process works - you have maybe 50 individual tracks that you have to mix together into a cohesive whole that matches the sound the band is going for. This isn't just like throwing paint on a canvas, it's a complicated technical process. Not just setting levels and EQing, but compressing and reverbs and tons of other effects.

So yes there is certainly creativity involved, but there is also technical competence and skill.

 

[Mart68]

So yes there is certainly creativity involved, but there is also technical competence and skill.

I completley agree - but once we take those things as read, after that it is purely a creative endeavour.

I wasn't suggesting for a second that it is a job that requires no skill or knowledge.

 

[Rettica]

I think that is both right and wrong. You can't just throw a random guy with no education behind a mixing desk and then he can be creative, and then say "Oh, there's no right or wrong" despite him making an absolute trainwreck of a mix, if he can even get something together at all.

The same can be said about any other creative process. If you give a random guy a guitar do you think he’ll be able to play a couple of chords? Of course not

Edit:
"This isn't just like throwing paint on a canvas" - interesting point of view. Do you really see any creative process as merely 'throwing paint on a canvas'? Quite an offensive statement

 

[Rettica]

I think the point is that it’s a creative process so there's no right or wrong way to do it. The job title may suggest otherwise if you think of, say, a structural engineer where if he does it wrong the bridge collapses.

Absolutely my point, thanks

 

[Rettica]

On the objective side of things - yes there are mixes that don’t translate well on other systems. But we can’t be sure what causes this issue in any particular case. Monitors seem to be the least problematic thing in the list, in my experience

 

[RexrothPigeon]

The same can be said about any other creative process. If you give a random guy a guitar do you think he’ll be able to play a couple of chords? Of course not

David Fair from the mighty mighty Half Japanese:

I taught myself to play guitar. It’s incredibly easy when you understand the science of it. The skinny strings play the high sounds, and the fat strings play the low sounds. If you put your finger on the string father out by the tuning end it makes a lower sound. If you want to play fast move your hand fast and if you want to play slower move your hand slower. That’s all there is to it.

 

[Rettica]

"Mixing is incredibly easy when you understand the science of it. There's this things called faders. If you pull one up the sound gets louder. If you pull it down - the sound gets quieter. That’s all there is to it"

 

[RickS]

Some good posts here as we work through better understanding of the sound production process. Please avoid the commentary about what others might know or don’t know. It takes discussion and research to uncover what opinions segments of a population really are. You may think you know what is in someone else’s mind, but to really know requires significant interaction (and even then, you can still be wrong).

Maybe the studio monitors are only a small part of the problem, but along with room standards, it would be a start. For that matter, they are only one part the CoC identifies. Standardization leads to more consistent results. There may be creative parts that are not as readily subject to standardization, but it does not have to handcuff the creative process either. In many cases, some standardization will likely improve the end result.

 

[Sigberg Audio]

The same can be said about any other creative process. If you give a random guy a guitar do you think he’ll be able to play a couple of chords? Of course not

Yes, so is (s)he then just a creative person that does not deserve to be called a guitarist? There's no right or wrong when playing the guitar?

I don't understand while he or she doesn't deserve to be called an engineer for the competence they have, despite what they doing also being a creative process.

Edit:
"This isn't just like throwing paint on a canvas" - interesting point of view. Do you really see any creative process as merely 'throwing paint on a canvas'? Quite an offensive statement

Not at all, I deliberately chose that as an example of creativity completely free of the need for any learned skill.

 

[Rettica]

Not at all, I deliberately chose that as an example of creativity completely free of the need for any learned skill

Now I don't get your point because I never mentioned creativity completely free of the need for any learned skill

Yes, so is (s)he then just a creative person that does not deserve to be called a guitarist? There's no right or wrong when playing the guitar?

I don't understand while he or she doesn't deserve to be called an engineer for the competence they have, despite what they doing also being a creative process.

These are philosophical questions. Many artists tried to find the answers to these during the second half of 20th century, particulary. I don't think we need to go this route here

 

[Rettica]

Maybe the studio monitors are only a small part of the problem, but along with room standards, it would be a start

It may help with translation to some extent, I agree. But room standards are much much much more important because studio acoustic conditions are total chaotic mess most of the times. There are 'live' rooms and 'dead' rooms, big and small, tall and short etc etc etc. I even once worked in a room with -10db hole at 60-70hz. And its a commercial studio. I don't even want to mention 'home' studios...

 

[Geert]

There's this things called faders. If you pull one up the sound gets louder. If you pull it down - the sound gets quieter. That’s all there is to it"

Great. Now you at 1% of what mixing entails.

 

[Sigberg Audio]

Now I don't get your point because I never mentioned creativity completely free of the need for any learned skill

Thus they deserve to be called sound engineer if that is their profession and what they went to school to become.

These are philosophical questions. Many artists tried to find the answers to these during the second half of 20th century, particulary. I don't think we need to go this route here

I think it's pretty clear cut, no philosophy involved. If you're skilled at playing a guitar, you're a guitarist. If you went to school to become a mixing and/or mastering engineer and you do that for a living, that's what you are.

 

[Sigberg Audio]

The point is that being a professional (engineer or something else) and doing creative work isn't mutually exclusive.

 

[Sigberg Audio]

@Rettica My commentary started with your statement:

There's no 'engineering' in mixing in academic sense. It's just a part of creative process

Perhaps you can elaborate what your point is here or what the implication of this is, to ensure I'm not misunderstanding you.

 

[Rettica]

Yeah, sorry if I was not clear enough. My comment addressed the earlier statement that mixing is ‘engineering’ and thus a completely technical thing. Therefore we can easily dismiss some of the mixes as being ‘bad’ or ‘wrong’ judging by some certain criteria. I completely disagree with this

 

[Sigberg Audio]

Yeah, sorry if I was not clear enough. My comment addressed the earlier statement that mixing is ‘engineering’ and thus a completely technical thing. Therefore we can easily dismiss some of the mixes as being ‘bad’ or ‘wrong’ judging by some certain criteria. I completely disagree with this

Thank you, yes than I at least partially misunderstood you.

I think a mix can be objectively and technically bad, for instance if it is clearly overcompressed (with the possible exception of it being of a music genre where for some reason that is an artistic expression). Beyond that I guess I can say that I think a mix is bad, but it will be a subjective rather than objective opinion.

I'm not sure exactly which side of the fence I'm on here. I would assume (qualified guess on my part) if a mix overall had a more balanced tonality, more space in the mix / better clarity of every individual instrument, most people would say that it was a better sounding mix than an alternative mix that had a wacked tonality, and was more of a wall of sound.

So in theory, while there's subjectivity involved, I suspect on a macro level you could see a trend of what people found to be a good sounding way to mix a track.

 

[Sigberg Audio]

If you look at most "hifi tracks" that are often used as reference tracks; These are likely used as reference tracks because they sound good to many people, otherwise it would be a poor choice to use as reference tracks to for instance demonstrate speakers. And those tracks often have good tonal balance, lots of separation between instruments, often good soundstage, etc. So that type of mixes seem to be preferred and/or be perceived as "good".

 

[Rettica]

totally agree! Except for instrument separation and soundstage - it’s style/genre dependent

Take Tame Impala’s early records for example. Very lo-fi sound, no soundstage, bad instrument separation. Yet the mixes reflect the artistic vision, they sound great and translate very well, and many people love them. But from a conservative point of view these mixes are completely flawed