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

[Rettica]

Moreover, I’m 99% sure that Tame Impala won’t gain their popularity if their mixes were technically perfect and accurate

 

[sigbergaudio]

Moreover, I’m 99% sure that Tame Impala won’t gain their popularity if their mixes were technically perfect and accurate

I have no prior knowledge of Tame Impala, never heard them or heard of them. Listened to a couple of tracks from their earliest(?) album InnerSpeaker.

They have a lofi / "old" sound, but nothing inherently wrong with the mixes given the context / their style.

As a side note, I think it's interesting that one can find examples of excellent tracks from way back in the late 70s. So old doesn't have to mean bad, and consequently you also don't have to create a bad mix to sound old.

Slightly related to Tame Impala; Ghost (of which I have become a recent fanboy) is a band that take lots of inspiration from 70s/80s/90s rock and metal, and some tracks sound like they are from that era, despite their first album being from 2010.


If you listen to for instance Ritual, stylewise it could have been released in the 70s, and initially the mix sounds like it too, a bit of a garage band vibe. But upon closer inspection it's actually a pretty balanced track with punchy percussion, clean guitar sound and well placed vocals. And it was of course not recorded in the 70s, but in 2010.

 

[Rettica]

If you listen to for instance Ritual, stylewise it could have been released in the 70s, and initially the mix sounds like it too, a bit of a garage band vibe. But upon closer inspection it's actually a pretty balanced track with punchy percussion, clean guitar sound and well placed vocals. And it was of course not recorded in the 70s, but in 2010.

Yeah, it's a stylisation. But quite 'hi-fi' one. Tame Impala's Innerspeaker sounds completely different. The biggest 'wrong' thing from a 'conservative' perspective would be a huge amount of delay and reverb on vocals (everything drowns in reverb) + heavy compression on master channel. But again, thats their sound. It's a part of a certain creative vision

 

[Rettica]

By the way, here’s a funny anecdote from me. When I was working in a room with not enough acoustic treatment I thought that most of the mixes sound bad. Now I’m in a heavily treated room and I can say that most of the records released during the last 10 years or so are actually quite good. Not great, but good. Average mix quality got 10x times better recently

 

[IPunchCholla]

So, in my pursuing, I have found that there are ISO standards for equipment, surfaces, and rooms for the mixing/mastering of audio information. It seems pretty thorough and should reduce the circle of confusion on the production end, if followed, and at least allow for the best possible mixes/masters within the time constraints and talents of the engineers as possible.

So the standards are there, I believe? So to close the circle of confusion you just need to follow those standards on the production end and on the consumption end and poof, the circle is functionally gone.

The problem might be economics as far as I can tell. While musicians should be choosing studios, mixers, and masterers based on the individuals doing the work, they actually get picked as much for the particular sound of the facilities (perceived or real). At least for recording. Does this extend to mixing and mastering? If so, economics are going to push differentiation. On the consumption side, there simply isn't a way to force compliance, so we are talking a lot of expense on the production end that likely won't ever be of audible benefit to the vast listening public. They simply don't care. They like over compressed music. They are the reason for the loudness wars. And that isn't something you can educate them out of. They aren't being stupid, it's just that if they want to listen to music, the vast majority of people are going to be listening to it in crap spaces with high ambient noise. Compressed music sounds better in that environment. I guess you could mix for ANC headphones that follow the Harman curve with low distortion, but most things mixed to that will not translate to a typical speaker environment. And while you can get excellent IEMs in those regards for $25, good luck getting a large enough listening base for producers to aim at.

Anyway, the way I see this whole issue is that technically, the circle of confusion is trivially easy to solve. But economics and society won't allow for it. and as the 8 mixes posted above show, the human factor is likely much larger than the technical factor anyway.

 

[thewas]

Anyway, the way I see this whole issue is that technically, the circle of confusion is trivially easy to solve. But economics and society won't allow for it. and as the 8 mixes posted above show, the human factor is likely much larger than the technical factor anyway.

The problems rather are that the current standards are rather flawed (see this AES paper which is available for free download) and most audio production people do not even follow those, not so much economical in my opinion as in audio there is a weak correlation of prices and qualities. Also the human factor is something different, different people will rather create even more different results when their reproduction chain differs, these factors are additive.

 

[IPunchCholla]

The problems rather are that the current standards are rather flawed (see this AES paper which is available for free download) and most audio production people do not even follow those, not so much economical in my opinion as in audio there is a weak correlation of prices and qualities. Also the human factor is something different, different people will rather create even more different results when their reproduction chain differs, these factors are additive.

That paper doesn't really seem to address the current standards at all outside of briefly stating (without evidence and without description of those standards) that they are not followed. So in my opinion the first real question is What are the current standards around audio production particularly as it relates to monitoring/mixing facilities? I know there are ANSI and ISO standards for loudspeakers, layout, interoperability, room dimensions, and reflectivity of surfaces. Toole's paper, in the conclusion seems to be arguing that we can reliably predict the acoustics of the room if we know the anechoic response of the speaker in three dimensions and the dimensions of the room. Given the current standards and our ability to predict the sound field in the room, is that enough to shrink the circle of confusion production side that we would get better mixes? If not, what is missing?

If we can shrink the circle of confusion production side given just the knowledge of speakers and rooms and mandating a certain compliance, why isn't that happening at all? Why is it Toole and Olive pushing for this? Why are none of the studios getting together to work on it? (This is what my above post was guessing at).

Are monitoring differences additive? Given that mixers/masterers are listening on a variety of speakers/headphones and using the differences between know speakers and headphones it is not clear to me that the differences would be additive at all. Humans are really good at using minimal information (how something sounds on 3 or 4 different speaker room combos) to calculate what an ideal (tho them) rendition of it would sound like and adjusting accordingly. But I haven't seen any studies on this.

Another thing we should be asking as hopefully we move forward to limit the impact of the circle of confusion is: Are there costs to implementing any particular standard for monitoring? What are the consequences (both intended and unintended) of those costs?

 

[sigbergaudio]

Here are a couple of the main standards. Based on my impression I suspect this is not widely followed. Then again, that a studio didn't actively reference the standard, doesn't necessarily mean that they don't still adhere to it in practice.

https://www.itu.int/dms_pubrec/itu-r/rec/bs/R-REC-BS.1116-3-201502-I!!PDF-E.pdf

https://tech.ebu.ch/docs/tech/tech3276.pdf

 

[Sokel]

That paper doesn't really seem to address the current standards at all outside of briefly stating (without evidence and without description of those standards) that they are not followed. So in my opinion the first real question is What are the current standards around audio production particularly as it relates to monitoring/mixing facilities? I know there are ANSI and ISO standards for loudspeakers, layout, interoperability, room dimensions, and reflectivity of surfaces. Toole's paper, in the conclusion seems to be arguing that we can reliably predict the acoustics of the room if we know the anechoic response of the speaker in three dimensions and the dimensions of the room. Given the current standards and our ability to predict the sound field in the room, is that enough to shrink the circle of confusion production side that we would get better mixes? If not, what is missing?

If we can shrink the circle of confusion production side given just the knowledge of speakers and rooms and mandating a certain compliance, why isn't that happening at all? Why is it Toole and Olive pushing for this? Why are none of the studios getting together to work on it? (This is what my above post was guessing at).

Are monitoring differences additive? Given that mixers/masterers are listening on a variety of speakers/headphones and using the differences between know speakers and headphones it is not clear to me that the differences would be additive at all. Humans are really good at using minimal information (how something sounds on 3 or 4 different speaker room combos) to calculate what an ideal (tho them) rendition of it would sound like and adjusting accordingly. But I haven't seen any studies on this.

Another thing we should be asking as hopefully we move forward to limit the impact of the circle of confusion is: Are there costs to implementing any particular standard for monitoring? What are the consequences (both intended and unintended) of those costs?

There's another factor too, sound signature.
The ones that made it far enough seem to think that they are entitled to have their own sound, both bands and engineers, specially the "big" names of the past.

It would be inevitable to deviate from standards to do this.

 

[thewas]

Here are a couple of the main standards. Based on my impression I suspect this is not widely followed. Then again, that a studio didn't actively reference the standard, doesn't necessarily mean that they don't still adhere to it in practice.

https://www.itu.int/dms_pubrec/itu-r/rec/bs/R-REC-BS.1116-3-201502-I!!PDF-E.pdf

https://tech.ebu.ch/docs/tech/tech3276.pdf

Yes, these are the standards and they are flawed as they prescribe a fixed (even flat!) operational room response curve, so in many cases it is even better they are not followed.

That paper doesn't really seem to address the current standards at all outside of briefly stating (without evidence and without description of those standards) that they are not followed.

Here are some posts of him here addressing them concretely (also referring to the corresponding sections in his book):

Post in thread 'Which speakers are the Classical Music Pros using?'

Jul 30, 2021

The European Broadcast Union has define what is an accurate reproduction.
https://tech.ebu.ch/docs/tech/tech3276.pdf


Northward Acoustic designs studio following the Non Environmental prerequesite except Northward introduce "noise" at the listening seat to give a normal ambiance at the engineer...

Hear music in anechoic chamber is a suffering. An accurate reproduction is made for a human.

The EBU Tech 3276 and ITU-R BS.1116-3 standards are essentially identical, and both are wrong. They require that the loudspeakers be flat on axis (good!, but a 4 dB tolerance for...

• Floyd Toole

• 

Post in thread 'A Broad Discussion of Speakers with Major Audio Luminaries'

Jun 8, 2025

Towards control rooms with higher RT60, more even directivity of speakers, specific requirements for bigger control rooms.



That process of updating started in 1998, with partly the BBC involved, that was what I was referring to. We should remark that average RT60=0.25s was originally referenced for a small to medium-sized control room.

I remember the panels for standardization in this case to be surprisingly competent and open. External influence from any ´industry´ was barred out pretty quickly, which led to the unfortunate situation that almost nothing has been published.

I...

• Floyd Toole

• 

 

[IPunchCholla]

@thewas, thank you for the links. They were very helpful. I would agree that the EBU and ITR standards are either wrong for monitoring or insufficiently broad.

I do wonder, after reading the AES paper, if it would be better to specify the anechoic parameters of the speakers and the dimensions and reflectivity of surfaces in the room as that would generate the room response and would provide models to both studios and listeners.

 

[IPunchCholla]

There's another factor too, sound signature.
The ones that made it far enough seem to think that they are entitled to have their own sound, both bands and engineers, specially the "big" names of the past.

It would be inevitable to deviate from standards to do this.

Which they would be free to do if the standards specified listening conditions and not mix conditions? Unless people tweak their EQ in order to have them push their mixes a certain way?

 

[goat76]

Pretty interesting video there. Makes me feel a bit more confident in my own work as some of these mixes are just pretty poor IMO. I think a lot of the differences come down to effort rather than monitoring, aside from the mix that is just way too bright. The best mixes tend to show that the engineer spent more time on the mix, for example automating drum levels to keep things punching through. It's clear some of the engineers didn't bother to go that in depth. I feel some of the engineers didn't quite understand the genre, or just didn't care for it. Generally when I get those I just pass them onto someone else because I know I won't care enough to do the song justice. When you do a mix you really have to understand the genre to do it well, need to know what the focal points are for a given section, etc..

The differences in guitars were kind of surprising, some of the guys seemed afraid to let the guitars have body, so they just sounded nasally and thin.

Idk what happened with the snare drum on the Scheps mix but it is really bad as the two guys pointed out. It really doesn't even sound like the same drum so there very well could be a sample trigger there, or just a totally whacked out EQ curve hitting some hard compression.

I'm quite sure the differences heard in those mixes weren't due to the studio monitors they used. It's more likely that their hearing acclimated itself to whatever tonal balance the mix drifted to during the mixing of all those individual tracks.



I took up the challenge and created my own mix from the multichannel tracks provided by those gentlemen. I would like you all to have a listen and tell me your honest opinion on what you think of it, and if any of you think you can hear that it was mixed in my living room on a pair of ATC SCM40 and two REL subwoofers.

Here is my mix, loudness-matched to the same -10.4 LUFS as the other mixes for easy comparisons:

Dropbox

www.dropbox.com

And here is the same mix but with the full dynamics intact, which lands at a loudness level of -16.4 LUFS:

Dropbox

www.dropbox.com

 

[Sokel]

I'm quite sure the differences heard in those mixes weren't due to the studio monitors they used. It's more likely that their hearing acclimated itself to whatever tonal balance the mix drifted to during the mixing of all those individual tracks.



I took up the challenge and created my own mix from the multichannel tracks provided by those gentlemen. I would like you all to have a listen and tell me your honest opinion on what you think of it, and if any of you think you can hear that it was mixed in my living room on a pair of ATC SCM40 and two REL subwoofers.

Here is my mix, loudness-matched to the same -10.4 LUFS as the other mixes for easy comparisons:

Dropbox

www.dropbox.com

And here is the same mix but with the full dynamics intact, which lands at a loudness level of -16.4 LUFS:

Dropbox

www.dropbox.com

Added you to the comparison. it's the top traces:

1/12

1/1

(haven't listened to any of them, still stick to my first choice by looks, alone)

Edit: same scaling as previous

 

[goat76]

@Sokel, I was just about to ask you if you made a mistake with your measurements, but I see you have changed the graphs to new ones. The measurements of my tracks look normal now and closer to the other mixes. What happened?

 

[Sokel]

@Sokel, I was just about to ask you if you made a mistake with your measurements, but I see you have changed the graphs to new ones. The measurements of my tracks look normal now and closer to the other mixes. What happened?

RTA analysis instead of a spectrum one, it was from yesterday's SPL measurements with friends here.
Now it's all the same. I saw the mistake as it was +10dB at dBFS scale!

 

[Travis]

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.

That't the hypothesis, based on logic. Dr. Toole says as much in his books, and is supposed to talk more about studios, in the 4th Edition.

I am recocering from the 4th of July Fiasco, and have found some more examples to continue the discussion. As you point out, I enjoyed reading many of the posts after the Youtube video, I think it opened some eyes, or more specially, where a communication barrier might exist and how to overcome it.

 

[Travis]

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".

I understand your point, and agree with it. I posted way, way, way up above the Michigan Professor who has the Book and teaches the class on ear training for mixing. said in one of the videos (also posted above) that "after you have the experience, the training, the EAR a lot of mixing comes down to taste - the top tier mixers have tastes that are shared by masses of people." Not many people, but astronomical numbers of people, like 5X Platinum kinds of numbers.

Travis

 

[Floyd Toole]

I understand your point, and agree with it. I posted way, way, way up above the Michigan Professor who has the Book and teaches the class on ear training for mixing. said in one of the videos (also posted above) that "after you have the experience, the training, the EAR a lot of mixing comes down to taste - the top tier mixers have tastes that are shared by masses of people." Not many people, but astronomical numbers of people, like 5X Platinum kinds of numbers.

Travis

I believe that this is the logical conclusion. Music is infinitely variable, and recordings of performed music are significantly variable - there are some fairly consistent elements. The combination of these variables constitutes the "art" which it, in theory, should be "reproduced" as accurately as possible so that consumers can hear it as created. The creation of the art must involve personal taste of the creators, meaning that customers may not agree on its relative excellence. Whether it is pleasing or not is purely a personal judgement. If, and it is a big "if", the technical portion of the record/reproduce cycle has been attended to, credit or blame can be directed to the creators of the art, not some real or imagined characteristic of the playback system.

However, the inconsistent application of scientifically based technical standards for loudspeakers, rooms and calibration procedures where the art is created and where it is appreciated has left us with what I called the "circle of confusion". This is of course an idealistic simplification, but it presents a plausible objective for the industry. The common factor that is not well controlled is bass response, which is dominated by room resonances/standiang waves, and which accounts for about 30% of one's overall assessment of sound quality. This can only be optimized in-situ, and techniques for doing so are well understood, but inconsistently applied. Differences in playback sound level can influence one's impression of overall spectral balance at both ends of the record/reproduce cycle and this is not standardized, nor can it be. Some amount of real-time spectral adjustment - "tone" controls/EQ - cannot be avoided if fussy listeners are to be satisfied. Recording engineers do it, so customers should also expect to do it.

The result is that, in terms only of timbre, recordings vary significantly in spectral balance, mostly in bass, but occasionally in treble and "presence'. Old fashioned tone controls are still useful devices for critical listeners at home. This is part of the "translation" concern of recording engineers, which is multiplied by the countless variations in portable audio, including headphones that totally distort the intended soundstage, but can deliver fundamental sound quality. Small audio devices present challenges in bass bandwidth and distortion, while well designed inexpensive headphones can reproduce the low bass almost flawlessly. How can one recording satisfy both audiences?

This set of circumstances leads to a parallel concern among manufacturers of playback devices of all kinds. What is the optimum spectrall balance? The "voicing" of playback devices has been a traditional activity before a product is launched - then fingers are crossed that the right decision was made.

The good news is that there is trustworthy evidence that increasing numbers of studio monitor and consumer loudspeakers, soundbars, and even many portable bluetooth devices radiate fundamentally neutral (i.e. resonance-free) sound. Sound quality is increasingly revealed by knowledgable inspection of comprehensive anechoic measurements. We see some of that evidence in the spinorama data that Amir and others generate for our benefit.

As Sean Olive explains in a chapter in the upcoming 4th edition, headphones are now approaching uniformly good performance, again based on measurements that correlate well with subjective judgements. There is a clear relationship with measurable loudspeaker performance. Unfortunately both audio professionals and consumers often dismiss measurements in favour of uncontrolled, usually sighted, subjective evaluations.

It is not any longer necessary for mixers to "like" their monitor loudspeakers - they should trust the technical data and judge the art that is created using them. On the consumer side there is a parallel situation, where now it is rational to argue that selecting loudspeakers based on competently interpreted anchoic data is more trustworthy than subjective evaluations done under the circumstances available to purchasers. Most such evaluations end up including non-acoustical biases as well as the unknown variables in recordings. Humans adapt to flaws very well, until something better is heard.

Music has survived over a century of technical abuse in sound capture, storage and reproduction, but it need not go on . . . sadly, the default stereo format remains.

 

[respice finem]

...Music has survived over a century of technical abuse in sound capture, storage and reproduction, but it need not go on . . . sadly, the default stereo format remains.

What do you see as the best replacement for stereo (considering probably >90% of existing recordings are in stereo).

I must confess I reverted to stereo from (poor man's) Atmos, because I got tired of most Atmos (and generally multichannel) productions, especially in movies.
Probably my setup wasn't good enough, or I am too "preconditioned" with stereo material.