Which Selection and Types of Studios Monitors For Mixing?

[Chevron]

I know you mean well, but be aware you're again waving a red cape in front of a bull

Thanks, gotcha

Is it the IK Micro Mains that you have or the slightly larger MTMs?

 

[Geert]

Thanks, gotcha

Is it the IK Micro Mains that you have or the slightly larger MTMs?

I have the Micro's, specifically to have a form factor that's totally different from regular high end near field monitors (and comes in handy for different use cases).

 

[Chevron]

I have the Micro's, specifically to have a form factor that's totally different from regular high end near field monitors (and comes in handy for different use cases).

Very cool, and knowing the MTMs I imagine they fit that bill very well.

Do you use the onboard calibration?

I confess I use the Trinnov to acoustically correct mine but it works very well.

 

[Geert]

Very cool, and knowing the MTMs I imagine they fit that bill very well.

Do you use the onboard calibration? I confess I use the Trinnov to acoustically correct mine but it works very well.

I don't have/use the IK calibration system since I have my own measurement system. For the iLouds I use the same approach as for my headphones, basically EQ profiles on the master bus of my DAW.

 

[nagster]

For me, it is not the same and not about bandwidth but more about the complete package of different monitors.

Making a mix sound great on a 'choice' selection of monitors can make for a more transferrable mix. I am only talking about 2 or 3 speaker sets, plus headphones.

It is also for me a psychological trick, a change is as good as a rest and so forth.

Ah, I was mistaken. sorry.
I thought this was a technical discussion about studio monitors, but when your preferences, mood, and physical condition are involved, the choice is yours and cannot be discussed.

Of course, if it is realistically impossible to reproduce the sound with the main speakers, such as in a car or with headphones, I think it is necessary to prepare it separately.

 

[Chevron]

Ah, I was mistaken. sorry.
I thought this was a technical discussion about studio monitors, but when your preferences, mood, and physical condition are involved, the choice is yours and cannot be discussed.

Of course, if it is realistically impossible to reproduce the sound with the main speakers, such as in a car or with headphones, I think it is necessary to prepare it separately.

No worries, and you have it spot on.

I am doing it right now whilst mixing a song, switched to ALT speakers for a different perspective and to aid creativity. I find it keeps me on my toes.

Absolutely, and in addition to the different sound, a different environment like a car can put you in a new headspace and listen with fresh ear and perspective.

 

[Ricardus]

What is going on in this thread. The person poses a "question" in the title and then answers it for himself. So what's the point after that?

 

[DVDdoug]

Disclaimer: I'm not an audio pro, but "I read a lot". Most of use here are audio & music lovers. (Audiophiles without the audiophool part.)

Your monitors should be ACCURATE so you know what your mix/production REALLY sounds like. With your little speakers you probably need a subwoofer (and a measured, treated, and EQ'd room). You can feel "realistic" bass in your body and you can't get that from a tiny speaker.

You don't need "the best" monitors or "perfect" monitors but you need to learn what a good mix sounds like on your setup in your room. After you've learned your monitors you probably won't want to "upgrade" because you'll have to learn your new monitors.

And you should have one or more reference tracks in the genres you work in to "keep your ears calibrated".

You shouldn't have to mix "loud". If you need to turn it up to hear a little detail or a little defect you can use headphones. Ideally, you should mix at a consistent SPL level because of the Equal Loudness Curves (when you turn-down the volume it sounds like you've turned-down the bass even more). Bob Katz has a recommended set-up for calibrating your monitoring levels.

Most pros will check their mix on multiple systems... Maybe a 2nd set of "degraded" monitors, headphones, in their car, on their home stereo, maybe their TV, etc. Again, they know what a good recording sounds like on their various setups and they might compare to a known-good reference recording. But that's just a "final check" in case something unusual "jumps out". They aren't trying to optimize the production for any particular playback system.

 

[Chevron]

What is going on in this thread. The person poses a "question" in the title and then answers it for himself. So what's the point after that?

I refer you to post #1

"Just looking to discuss in an open forum what approach other experienced engineers use."

 

[Ricardus]

I get no benefit when I change to NS10's or other "low-fi" monitors after listening to my 1031a's and my SLS ribbon nearfields. I get more benefit when I audition well mixed material in a similar style to what I am mixing.

 

[Chevron]

I get no benefit when I change to NS10's or other "low-fi" monitors after listening to my 1031a's and my SLS ribbon nearfields. I get more benefit when I audition well mixed material in a similar style to what I am mixing.

Cool, some of my best mixes were done on 1031As.

So you have the 1031As and the SLS speakers, and also NS10s?

 

[Ricardus]

Cool, some of my best mixes were done on 1031As.

So you have the 1031As and the SLS speakers, and also NS10s?

I don't own NS10's, but the last studio I worked in had those, as well as some other studios, so I've got some time on them. They work for a lot of engineers but not for me.

 

[807Recordings]

NS10's have never helped me produce the music I do. My music is mostly Detroit Techno, but lately and for the last decade maybe even more electronic and dub, slower BPM. That part announced because:
Currently using JBL 305s with their subs in a very very small well absorbed 2meter by 2meter studio.
The clarity of these little monitors has helped in some areas very well.
Apple airpod pro2 (game changer in frequency accuracy). Sort of a double check.
JBL SVA 2100s in my living area. Most my best dance floor stuff was produced on them. Had everything from Wilson, B&W 800s, etc and these speakers just made it instantly clear how the dynamics of kicks, bass, synthesizer and compression translate to the larger PA's.
There is no question the JBL 305s are more frequency accurate but for some reason those subtle details on how you adjust a compressor, especially on lower end just do not translate as well. Two seconds on the big speakers though and I can come back and correct.
Apple Airpods, have to be some of the best in frequencies but I will say in terms of dynamics it really misses something.

In short whenever I am back to my next contracts in IT Security and saved some money up I will likely go a bit bigger with something like the Genelec One 40-50 series as the JBL 305s compression can be a thing. The more accurate a speaker measures the more accurate I think you can produce has been my lessons learned.

 

[Deleted member 48726]

NS10's have never helped me produce the music I do. My music is mostly Detroit Techno, but lately and for the last decade maybe even more electronic and dub, slower BPM. That part announced because:
Currently using JBL 305s with their subs in a very very small well absorbed 2meter by 2meter studio.
The clarity of these little monitors has helped in some areas very well.
Apple airpod pro2 (game changer in frequency accuracy). Sort of a double check.
JBL SVA 2100s in my living area. Most my best dance floor stuff was produced on them. Had everything from Wilson, B&W 800s, etc and these speakers just made it instantly clear how the dynamics of kicks, bass, synthesizer and compression translate to the larger PA's.
There is no question the JBL 305s are more frequency accurate but for some reason those subtle details on how you adjust a compressor, especially on lower end just do not translate as well. Two seconds on the big speakers though and I can come back and correct.
Apple Airpods, have to be some of the best in frequencies but I will say in terms of dynamics it really misses something.

In short whenever I am back to my next contracts in IT Security and saved some money up I will likely go a bit bigger with something like the Genelec One 40-50 series as the JBL 305s compression can be a thing. The more accurate a speaker measures the more accurate I think you can produce has been my lessons learned.

As an impressed owner of the airpods pro 2. gen I'd like to know what you mean by the highlighted sentence in more detail?

To me those little white plastic things are producing astoundingly good sound quality. So good, in fact, that I've strived to get as close to that sound as possible by Dirac Live EQ in my home HiFi system. I was quite simply blown away when I first heard them.

 

[807Recordings]

As an impressed owner of the airpods pro 2. gen I'd like to know what you mean by the highlighted sentence in more detail?

To me those little white plastic things are producing astoundingly good sound quality. So good, in fact, that I've strived to get as close to that sound as possible by Dirac Live EQ in my home HiFi system. I was quite simply blown away when I first heard them.

So sometimes I will do a final mixdown and move over the airpods and usually instantly I can tell if I was a little too heavy on the kick, bass, etc. However what I have found is that it does not always translate well in the area of subtle dynamics. At times I will run a compressor on my synths, or kicks and well adjusting it the airpods really do not show what is really happening. Also when the mix is a bit more raw and unfinished.
This is actually one of my critiques of the 305s also with their sub. When first in the sort of abstract side of producing it isn't uncommon to be working on a specific part like bass and kick with a very high volume. Usually just trying to get that feel of how it will feel on a big PA system on the dance floor.
The JBL, Airpods will compress and give a false indication.
Hence my comments about my older JBL SVA 2100s.

Game Changer for sure the airpods:
Never in the history of music can we walk around, stream music (sound cloud testing) with accurate sound, anywhere we want.
But their dynamic EQ systems does at times do something a bit strange, and at least to me there is no replacement for the real world feeling of sound and presentations on a good monitor system.

Hopefully I helped answer your question?

 

[Travis]

Hm, I suppose my motivation is that:

A: I believe in Sean Olive theory of a circle of confusion, which in this case would be represented by content creators adapting their work to consumer products and manufacturers adapting their consumer products to the created content. Like a dog chasing its own tail, so to say.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1338494631277785088

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1338496221929881600

B: as an enthusiastic consumer of audio content, I would hate my efforts in creating a neutral and we'll extended playback environment be negated by creators optimizing their work for lesser systems.

My concern is that if your mixes are designed to sound very similar on both your low BW iLoud and your (presumably) high BW mains, then they will inevitably make my high BW system sound like iLouds.

In other words, I think there is value in designing your bassline to be audible even if you high-pass it to simulate a basic speaker.

But making it sound very similar, high-passed or not, would make your mixes sound worse and worse as consumer audio products get better and creators take advantage of the increased capabilities.

Yet Dr. Olive hasn’t been able to get standards adopted at AES, nor Dr. Toole before him on studio monitors.

I’m not sure why that is. Industry pushback, lack of consensus on what standard should be, other considerations? No studies (like in none, not a single solitary one) showing a correlation between monitors used and quality of end result? There are studies on the massive differences in playback sound in studio control rooms, but no standards.

Or maybe mixing engineers, the top tier who can command a production royalty, have never been tested at Harmon’s Northridge facility with multiple studio monitors to see if their preference for mixing monitors is the same as consumer preferences for consumer speakers.

Top tier mixing engineers are top tier for one reason, and one reason alone, their mixes sell records/downloads/physical media/get played on radio.

Then there are the unknowns, are the studio monitors used by the top tier being run flat in the control room (doubtful), or EQ’d, if so what EQ, what in room response.

All the proper controls are in place, after decades or refinement, for blind preference tests on consumer speakers. I don’t know of any equivalent for mixing engineers, or monitors in a control room setting, etc.

Dr. Toole, I believe, even up to the latest edition, spells out the circle of confusion problem, and says it’s surprising that it exists, but says studies are needed and more information is needed. The same for Dr. Olive, in a blog post from about 4 years ago, says need to start by getting a more standard control room.

What’s the update on where things are at with AES or other professional organization (acoustics or IEEE) on standards for control room monitors, or control rooms.

If my company made the flattest, most accurate, most (fill in blank) professional monitors available, I would be figuring out a way to demonstrate objectively how using them results in better mixes, better recordings, higher sales of music, more awards, etc.

It’s not there, studies, standards, manufacturer’s research, nothing. I don’t know why, but there isn’t, unless I have missed something that has come down the pike since the last 100+ page debate on this issue.

 

[GXAlan]

Circle of Confusion: Database of Studios and their Monitors

Out of curiosity, I started looking up the mastering/mixing gear used at some of my favorite studios. I thought it might be good to create a master thread where we keep track of what speakers are used where. I haven't separated the recording studio from the mastering/mixing studio, which is...

www.audiosciencereview.com

You need two monitors. Virtually every high end studio has high end speakers. That’s your main monitor.

Then, use the Sonos Era300 as your low end reference. Or if you want, an iPad Pro.

There isn’t much need to have a dozen different options. Today, the lowest common denominator is NOT the “office mini component setup with the 3” woofer” as it was in the 80’s.

 

[Travis]

I know you mean well, but be aware you're again waving a red cape in front of a bull

(Edit: with bull meaning this science oriented forum in general, not specific people).

So let’s get him the science, the studies, etc. that show that studio monitors with certain attributes, flat FR, house curved FR, anything, result in better mixes, and ultimately better recordings at the consumer level.

 

[Andysu]

 

[Chevron]

So let’s get him the science, the studies, etc. that show that studio monitors with certain attributes, flat FR, house curved FR, anything, result in better mixes, and ultimately better recordings at the consumer level.

I would indeed appreciate any scientific references to articles or studies that discuss using studio monitors to mix music that translates to a broad selection of consumer systems.

As a looong-term mix engineer I have worked tirelessly at making my mixes extremely translatable for the genre of the song, and this has mostly come about through trial and error, experimentation, using countless studio monitors over the years, and a lot of listening and analysis.

I feel that in my current Genelec 8351B, Neumann KH150, Avantone, Apple Airpod Max equipped studio I have it down, however always open-minded and willing to research.