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

[Floyd Toole]

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.

It is too late to change formats. It is interesting to ponder that the history of audio began with loudspeakers, where numbers (channels) matter because of their physical "presences" in rooms. Mono was deprived of any semblance of envelopment, and stereo added enough directional and spatial interest to gratify most people, so it earned the right to become widely used. Over the years the flaws and limitations of stereo have become the norm - we have adapted to it, and some people even think it is "perfection".

That said, these forums indicate that there is a never ending desire to extract more from stereo than it is capable of delivering.

Those who have heard well made multichannel or immersive classical recordings tend to agree that they are much more rewarding, but the investment in, and the intrusiveness of the hardware is challenging for people who do not have a dedicated listening room. The shortage of recordings is a factor. The compromise is upmixed stereo, but the upmixing process adds a layer of "art". Upmixers are not universally tasteful, often interfering with the soundstage, rather than just adding a pleasant sense of spaciousness. I have used them for years, and the effects of a good one are most noticeable when it is turned off and the sound field collapses to the front. Even a pair of added side channels is enough for a significant benefit. Locating them at +/- 60 deg may be optimum for music.

As I point out in the 4th edition, if one wants to capture, store and reproduce three dimensional acoustical events, binaural (dummy head) recordings using headphones with head position tracking on playback can be very impressive. But there are almost no programs in that format (games notwithstanding). Crosstalk cancelled loudspeaker reproduction offers some interesting binaural options, but these are not well known or understood. Still two loudspeakers and a sweet spot but with interesting spatial options.

 

[respice finem]

I'm currently getting some (fake, really, but pleasant) spaciousness by having an "underdamped" living room.

 

[JRowland]

Even a pair of added side channels is enough for a significant benefit. Locating them at +/- 60 deg may be optimum for music.

I’ve enjoyed upmixing since the 90’s but never sought out any of the dedicated source material or really went deep with set up. I finally at 53 recently set up a room for music mainly. I’ve got the stereo settled and I’ve been messing with both how good the surrounds (2 for me) need to be and placement. My wife has been pretty cool about everything so far but after seeing this study a few weeks back and giving 60 degrees a whirl she put her foot down and I’m back to 90 ish. I did/do like 60 degrees the best but luckily the difference to me isn’t very much. Having a full range speaker for the surrounds or at least ones I can cross over at 40hz makes a bigger difference to me in the overall feel of things but I’m glad I played with both placement and quality.

 

[dfuller]

Not directly connected to the monitors as such, but here's a pretty interesting video where we hear how 8 different engineers mixed and mastered the same track (independently of each other).

Watching this now...

- Jens Bogren's mix is great. Not too surprising, he's one of the best doing this genre at the moment. Last I checked he had Amphions, but that may have changed...
- Mike Exeter's mix is unbalanced, gigantic low end for no reason and the drums are tiny. No clue what he's using. but I wouldn't hire him.
- Nolly's mix is kind of midrangey to a fault. I'm not mad at it, but if I put a -1dB cut at 500hz I'd probably like it better. Not sure what he's using, I've seen Kiis in the past.
- Josh Middleton's mix is similar to Jens, but incredibly compressed and the kick is very loud. No clue what he's using.
- Fredrik Nordstrom's is surprisingly awful! He's done a lot of great sounding metal records, but this mix is just not there. It's blurry and bassy and the vocals just disappeared. I do like that the guitars have some top end though... Again, not sure what he's using.
- Buster Odeholm's mixes I've never liked in the past and this reflects that. It's so crushed that it starts sounding like static. It doesn't work, it loses definition and it's fatiguing as hell to listen to. Also incredibly scooped and bright. Don't know what he's using, but it doesn't work.
- Dave Otero's mix is good. Balanced well. A bit too slammed and definitely a bit too bright.
- Andrew Scheps... this is a whiff. Did not do a good job for the genre. Drums are indistinct and lack punch, the whole mix feels loose and weird. Last I checked, he's mostly working on headphones.

 

[goat76]

Watching this now...

- Jens Bogren's mix is great. Not too surprising, he's one of the best doing this genre at the moment. Last I checked he had Amphions, but that may have changed...
- Mike Exeter's mix is unbalanced, gigantic low end for no reason and the drums are tiny. No clue what he's using. but I wouldn't hire him.
- Nolly's mix is kind of midrangey to a fault. I'm not mad at it, but if I put a -1dB cut at 500hz
- Josh Middleton's mix is similar to Jens, but incredibly compressed and the kick is very loud. No clue what he's using. This
- Fredrik Nordstrom's is surprisingly awful! He's done a lot of great sounding metal records, but this mix is just not there. It's blurry and bassy and the vocals just disappeared. I do like that the guitars have some top end though... Again, not sure what he's using.
- Buster Odeholm's mixes I've never liked in the past and this reflects that. It's so crushed that it starts sounding like static. It doesn't work, it loses definition and it's fatiguing as hell to listen to. Also incredibly scooped and bright. Don't know what he's using, but it doesn't work.
- Dave Otero's mix is good. Balanced well. A bit too slammed and definitely a bit too bright.
- Andrew Scheps... this is a whiff. Did not do a good job for the genre. Drums are indistinct and lack punch, the whole mix feels loose and weird. Last I checked, he's mostly working on headphones.

I tried to search the information on what speakers all of those guys are using in their studios. Some of these may be incorrect, but the following is what I could find, which I think is fairly recent information:

Jens Bogren - Amphion Two18

Mike Exeter - Focal Twin 6 Be

Adam Nolly Getgood - ATC SCM25

Josh Middleton - Adam S2V

Fredrik Nordström - Neumann KH310

Buster Odeholm - Seems to be using headphones most of the time. I saw a pair of Genelec speakers in a studio he used.

Dave Otero - Barefoot Audio MicroMain26

Andrew Scheps - I have seen him using headphones, and he often talks about mixing music with headphones. PMC LB1 may be the speakers he uses, not sure.


I don't think it matters what loudspeakers they use, or what the acoustics are like in their studios. When trying to combine 40 individual tracks and focusing on many small details to get everything to work together in the mix, their hearing likely got "calibrated" fast to whatever the overall tonal balance drifted to. At that point, it doesn't matter if you are using the flattest measuring audio system in the world.
I believe most people are prone to that, I mean, who has not put on an album and their first reaction was: "This album is pretty bright-sounding", but if the music is good, the hearing has likely gotten used to the overall bright sound and it's hardly noticeable by the second or third track on the album.

Most of the time, issues with the overall tonal balance are addressed by a second pair of ears in the mastering process. And because of the above-mentioned problem, many mastering engineers prefer to work fast to avoid getting used to the initial overall balance of the mix. Upon the first listen, they immediately make notes of these things before their ears start to be "calibrated" to a possible unnatural tonal balance.

In both mixing and mastering of music, it's a very good idea to use well-known and well-balanced reference tracks in the same genre, and listen to them now and then during the mixing or mastering process to "recalibrate" the hearing to a tonally known, well-balanced reference. This is the most reliable way to make sure of great consistency, as just having the flattest measuring audio system in the world will not help much or anything with this problem.

 

[Floyd Toole]

I tried to search the information on what speakers all of those guys are using in their studios. Some of these may be incorrect, but the following is what I could find, which I think is fairly recent information:

Jens Bogren - Amphion Two18

Mike Exeter - Focal Twin 6 Be

Adam Nolly Getgood - ATC SCM25

Josh Middleton - Adam S2V

Fredrik Nordström - Neumann KH310

Buster Odeholm - Seems to be using headphones most of the time. I saw a pair of Genelec speakers in a studio he used.

Dave Otero - Barefoot Audio MicroMain26

Andrew Scheps - I have seen him using headphones, and he often talks about mixing music with headphones. PMC LB1 may be the speakers he uses, not sure.


I don't think it matters what loudspeakers they use, or what the acoustics are like in their studios. When trying to combine 40 individual tracks and focusing on many small details to get everything to work together in the mix, their hearing likely got "calibrated" fast to whatever the overall tonal balance drifted to. At that point, it doesn't matter if you are using the flattest measuring audio system in the world.
I believe most people are prone to that, I mean, who has not put on an album and their first reaction was: "This album is pretty bright-sounding", but if the music is good, the hearing has likely gotten used to the overall bright sound and it's hardly noticeable by the second or third track on the album.

Most of the time, issues with the overall tonal balance are addressed by a second pair of ears in the mastering process. And because of the above-mentioned problem, many mastering engineers prefer to work fast to avoid getting used to the initial overall balance of the mix. Upon the first listen, they immediately make notes of these things before their ears start to be "calibrated" to a possible unnatural tonal balance.

In both mixing and mastering of music, it's a very good idea to use well-known and well-balanced reference tracks in the same genre, and listen to them now and then during the mixing or mastering process to "recalibrate" the hearing to a tonally known, well-balanced reference. This is the most reliable way to make sure of great consistency, as just having the flattest measuring audio system in the world will not help much or anything with this problem.

This is astute observation.
First it acknowledges that human listeners adapt to spectral balance issues and work with, in your example, or live with, in consumer audio, sound quality that is less than ideal.
Second, it acknowledges that having a comparison sound is helpful to break the adaptation and demonstrate that there is a difference; in your example, a problem.

This is exactly why our subjective evaluations of loudspeakers always involve mulitple comparisons, instantly switched. Without comparisons adaptation sets in and flaws get normalized - this is the standard "take it home and listen to it" loudspeaker review method.

 

[Andysu]

The obsession with frequency response is silly when we all know anyone who cares can eq them ruler flat if that's important to them.

there's simp;y not enough PEQ EQ filters to tackle all the sine wave tones , REW 20,000 and working backwards 19,999 , 19,998 , 19,997 ( if floyd tool doesn't understand that ) [ grr you know idea how frustrated i am about it ] and so on with a microphone placed closed or mic arrays placed close to each speaker driver depending how its set up in a b-chain ? there isn't enough 20,200 PEQ EQ filters narrow q bandwidth to tackle , all we get is cheap rubbish dirac , oh sure it has few hundred but not nearly enough and its depressing , if there was one 3U frame box 32 channel xlr DB rca connectors to do it cheap £500 , as this eq thing is a scam audio scam with scammy professionals and i'm sick and tired fed up with this bs eq , if there was one tgat did all 20,200 filters per each of 32 channels , yeah then i can start addressing the issues , which is why i don't use dirac its useless to me the amount of bands i need for HF horns is a lot
it does need be flat , amp is flat its all the speakers that are dodgy crocked up and down

personally couldn't care less about this audio rubbish anymore , just a load of insiders with bs talk and hardly any practical videos to show sigh grrr

 

[sigbergaudio]

there's simp;y not enough PEQ EQ filters to tackle all the sine wave tones , REW 20,000 and working backwards 19,999 , 19,998 , 19,997 ( if floyd tool doesn't understand that ) [ grr you know idea how frustrated i am about it ] and so on with a microphone placed closed or mic arrays placed close to each speaker driver depending how its set up in a b-chain ? there isn't enough 20,200 PEQ EQ filters narrow q bandwidth to tackle , all we get is cheap rubbish dirac , oh sure it has few hundred but not nearly enough and its depressing , if there was one 3U frame box 32 channel xlr DB rca connectors to do it cheap £500 , as this eq thing is a scam audio scam with scammy professionals and i'm sick and tired fed up with this bs eq , if there was one tgat did all 20,200 filters per each of 32 channels , yeah then i can start addressing the issues , which is why i don't use dirac its useless to me the amount of bands i need for HF horns is a lot
it does need be flat , amp is flat its all the speakers that are dodgy crocked up and down

personally couldn't care less about this audio rubbish anymore , just a load of insiders with bs talk and hardly any practical videos to show sigh grrr

I suspect your approach to equalizing is not ideal.

 

[dfuller]

Those who have heard well made multichannel or immersive classical recordings tend to agree that they are much more rewarding, but the investment in, and the intrusiveness of the hardware is challenging for people who do not have a dedicated listening room.

Correct.

This is astute observation.
First it acknowledges that human listeners adapt to spectral balance issues and work with, in your example, or live with, in consumer audio, sound quality that is less than ideal.
Second, it acknowledges that having a comparison sound is helpful to break the adaptation and demonstrate that there is a difference; in your example, a problem.

This is exactly why our subjective evaluations of loudspeakers always involve mulitple comparisons, instantly switched. Without comparisons adaptation sets in and flaws get normalized - this is the standard "take it home and listen to it" loudspeaker review method.

I have said it before and I'll say it again; the thing that separates the real pros from those cosplaying as it is the amount of time they've put into training their hearing. Learning references is part of it. But there's other stuff too; taking breaks of 10-15 minutes every couple of hours to de-acclimate yourself is a crucial part of mixing that nobody ever talks about. I can't tell you how many times I've seen students buckle down for 8, 10, 12 hours straight and end up in a worse spot than they started. Breaks are necessary or you lose perspective. I've done it before; everybody has.

 

[thewas]

I suspect your approach to equalizing is not ideal.

Imagine he finds out that frequencies are not only integers.

 

[Geert]

Imagine he finds out that frequencies are not only integers.

The moment he does, the next question then becomes how many frequencies you can tackle with a convolution filter.

 

[Guerilla]

Thus I would have thought the need for neutral/transparent monitors in the creation and ideally in its reproduction.
I can understand the usefulness of a ‘known qualtity’ but surely it would be preferable if that reference were transparent.
Keith

You are right, and the amount of stupid phantasies in this thread is mind-blowing. Sorry I don't have scientific studies to prove it. I just deducted from reading.
Cheers!

 

[Guerilla]

I don’t need to prove your unsubstantiated claim false. This is a science based forum.

Please go away.

 

[Guerilla]

Post the study or paper then. All you’re posting is opinion.

You found ASR. You read a little and picked some lingo. Please use it to troll somewhere else.

 

[lowkeyoperations]

You found ASR. You read a little and picked some lingo. Please use it to troll somewhere else.

Yes. Found many years ago.
That doesn’t change the fact that there is much posted about studio monitors and the process of mixing that is incorrectly using a study based on listener preferences in farfield as its basis.

 

[dfuller]

You found ASR. You read a little and picked some lingo. Please use it to troll somewhere else.

Really came in awfully hot here.

 

[Phorize]

I don’t need to prove your unsubstantiated claim false. This is a science based forum.

That's a cute truism that that served Hitchens well in debating forums but the great man never did adequately (at least publicly) deal with the reality that the only form of rationalism that survived the 20th century was critical rationalism-with footnotes introduced by pan critical rationalists, especially W W Bartley. All other forms of rationalism ultimately regress to some form of justification, such as 'a wizard did it'. The implication is that if we want to think scientifically then all we actually have is the ability to tentatively refute conjectures. I think @thewas has offered a good explanation on where we currently are around the circle of confusion-given that it reflects the findings of the relevant research, you do indeed have to tentatively refute it if you don't think it should stand.

 

[RickS]

Yes. Found many years ago.
That doesn’t change the fact that there is much posted about studio monitors and the process of mixing that is incorrectly using a study based on listener preferences in farfield as its basis.

Not clear your statement does much to refute the basis for the circle of confusion. Not all studios are nearfield and the point is that the differences in equipment and its application affect consistency. Despite this inconsistency, the defense seems to be that many recordings still turn out quite good and implies that no further improvement is needed. This difference in perspective is comparable to how a subjectivist listener approaches the hobby versus a more objective listener. So can see why many ASR members struggle with a seemingly subjective aspect of the production of sound. This is not my personal opinion nor do I think it is a simple binary difference, but my observation as I observe the ongoing discussion of this topic.

As a more discriminating listener, I do like the possibility that future music releases could support editions that are tailored for more capable sound systems. Would also need a THX-like reference for what qualifies as a capable sound system.

 

[lowkeyoperations]

For me, it goes back to page 1. The tread is purely based on unproven and untested conjecture.

"A meaningful standard that defined the quality and calibration of the loudspeaker and room would improve the quality and consistency of recordings. The same standard could then be applied to the playback of the recording in the consumer’s home or automobile. Finally, consumers would be able to hear the music as the artist intended."

These are 3 conjectures put forward. All remain untested.

1. "A meaningful standard that defined the quality and calibration of the loudspeaker and room would improve the quality and consistency of recordings.

In order for this to be tested, an actual standard needs to be defined. But there is no standard put forward. If a frequency response needs to be “flat” then how flat? How low does the frequency response need to go? Is it full range 20Hz-20kHz. Is -6db at 30Hz ok? Do frequencies above say 12kHz even matter? Do they have to go up to levels above 100dB just because a few listeners downstream like to crank their systems?

Is it ok to have a small non compliant speaker to use if you also have some bigger mains? Is it ok to mix on headphones?

There are so many unknowns there. If you want me to take seriously a “meaningful standard” then it can’t just be completely devoid of detail. Especially if you’re wanting the whole industry to switch to it.

Once a decent concept was put in place you could then start evaluating whether or not this new standard made any meaningful improvements. Does the standard need to be tweaked further? Was something included that didn’t make any differences. Do the tolerances need to be increased or decreased. That could also be weighed against the cost of investment to determine whether that standard was worth adopting or where the “good enough” point is located.

I’m assuming here that the standard would be voluntary. Kind of like atmos (which has hardly been anything beyond a fringe demand really), or THX which is already there. Why is another standard required when (almost) none of the market is even listening on higher end systems. Outside of a niche of a niche is there any study identifying demand that would drive the investment for this to occur?

The standard would still leave a huge percentage of producers working outside of it. I fail to see how such a format would be of interest to enough people to make it financially feasible.

And without proof that the standard makes better mixes, what would be the impetus?

If you took Mike Deans NS10s away from him, and insisted that he work on a pair of KH120s ( as an hypothetical example of what may or may not be in this new standard) instead, would he make higher quality and more consistent mixes than he already does? Or would they be worse because he knows them so well? Would they take him longer? If his studio midfields were compliant, but he wanted to keep using his NS10s, would his mix still be able to be released as compliant with the standard? Or only if he didn’t use them??

2. “The same standard could then be applied to the playback of the recording in the consumer’s home or automobile.”

Could it? Or would it need to be a different set of standards aimed at the domestic market, taking into account the lack of consumers who would have the financial means to set up a listening environment that is the same standard as a studio.

If RT60 was in the standard for studios, would that be required for playback compliance?

How would a boombox, iPhone or laptop achieve the standard. Or is this standard only applicable to a shrinking hifi enthusiast market?


3. “Finally, consumers would be able to hear the music as the artist intended."

Even if conjectures 1 and 2 were finally tested and proven, this last point would be an even bigger assumption.
A good case in point, that I’ve mentioned here before is Weeknd Blinding Lights. It’s the most played song of all time on Spotify.

I’m going to say that having the most popular song of all time was what the artist to achieve one day. Im going to put my own conjecture that he’s happy with that mix :lol:

Amir thinks the snare is too loud in the mix.
He puts it down to the circle of confusion.
I put that down to subjective aesthetics. You don’t have to like every mix you hear. Amir isnt going to magically like that mix just because the artist does. He’s going to still think the snare could be turned down a bit. So what’s the point?

We are big here on double blind tests. if anyone here wants to suggest they heard a difference in the quality of recordings when changing equipment without tests they get routinely roasted. But the circle of confusion conjecture insists everyone will hear an “improvement” without any studies at all into what might be required to achieve their 3 conjectures.

As Trump might describe it, it’s a “concept of a plan”. It needs a lot more fleshing out, development and actual testing before it becomes anything more…IMO of course.

If those things are done and the conjecture is proven, and I can afford to do it, and the music I like is produced for the new format then I’m all in!!

 

[Geert]

Note that this topic is a spin-off from the ATC topic, where the discussion about ATC speakers constantly got diverted to the questing to what extend the knowledge we have about speakers used to enjoy music in domestic rooms also applies to music production in studio environments. That endless debate (5542 posts!) made it clear that there are lots of assumptions but no hard evidence. Since the purpose of this thread is to close that gap, the topic needs to be approached with an open mind. If we get no further then finger-pointing ("you need to proof this and that"), then this topic has no reason to exist I believe.