Im slowly getting into doing recordings with my stepsonish.Helping him out ETC.. He has monitors and Im not really impressed with them,they sound ok. The songs he recorded sounded waay better from my pc than from the monitors.The same with my home stereo even.I listen to music from my pc all the time and I think it sounds great not shrill or too boomy vocals are good and clear. I don't have your normal set up for the sound from the pc though that may be the reason.
Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
Is it absolutely necessary to use near field monitors.
- Thread starter wildman2
- Start date
Your ears/brain get use to whatever you listen too. When you listen to something it doesn't sound familiar and you reject it. Double blind tests time and time again show that speakers and headphones that accurately reproduce the sound they are given are what most people end up liking in the long run.
So "Yes" good accurate monitors are important if you want to use monitors. Measuring the monitors in the space your sitting is important to know if they are accurate. There software like IK Multimedia ARC, or Room EQ Wizard will allow you to measure the room and adjust the EQ to compensate. They also help you to treat your room with acoustic panels as they are required.
So "Yes" good accurate monitors are important if you want to use monitors. Measuring the monitors in the space your sitting is important to know if they are accurate. There software like IK Multimedia ARC, or Room EQ Wizard will allow you to measure the room and adjust the EQ to compensate. They also help you to treat your room with acoustic panels as they are required.
Just to add to seamonkeys well observed points..
It might be helpful to consider why people buy hi-fi and audio systems as well as sound systems for P.C.'s?
Though consumers might seek to buy a truly realistic sounding system with very expensive hi fi, overwhelmingly it is the case that consumers are seeking a sound system that significantly impresses their senses and sounds good to their ears.
Many judge such systems by the amount of bass they deliver, some the crispness of the high frequencies and some want both, but usually, although such systems are often judged very favourably by consumers, the systems themselves are highly colouring the sound.
In fact, by design and manufacture they are produced to create what is often a hyped representation of sound, that most people will find readily acceptable and even be impressed by. They are made to sound good to the average person who enjoys music, but is not an avid audio geek.
Monitors used in recording studios (and most particularly in mastering studios) should be the exact opposite of the above, in design and manufacturing terms.
For we should appreciate that these speakers are the means by which extremely subtle changes in sound are going to be judged, as the audio engineer adjusts the equalisation for instance, on a given track.
But it goes much further than that, beyond selecting a frequency to adjust, its necessary to add or cut the amount of gain, and the width or narrowness of the quality or "Q" factor which determines what other frequencies will be impacted with those changes. E.Q. compression, reverb, levels and adjustment of balance of sonorities between any number of recorded tracks need to be clearly heard, to be able to judge proper adjustment.
In fact, by design and manufacture recording studio monitors (and particularly mastering studio monitors) are designed not to sound "good", but rather to be revealing, to faithfully reflect the truth of what is happening in the mix. So that when the audio engineer makes an adjustment (no matter how subtle) what they have done can be clearly heard and understood in a highly detailed way. Otherwise, the audio engineer would have no way of genuinely appreciating what effect their adjustments have had. No way of determining when they have turned a knob enough. Or whether they should have never turned it at all!
In other words, both types of speakers have their place, but each of them are designed and manufactured differently, to fulfil a different task, to produce a different result.
With complete respect then, the original poster could be stated to be comparing apples with oranges, quite understandably so, as both types, look and sound, just like "speakers".
Here's the thing, the person making a recording has no idea whatever what type of playback system, whoever buys their recording will listen to them on. They might listen on their in-car entertainment system, inside a small, metal, glass, plastic and foam enclosure.
On the other hand, they might listen using a boom box in a bedroom. Of course, they might have a relatively inexpensive home audio system they enjoy in their living room, or even a thrilling sounding high end hi-fi system in a spacious environment that cost them a bomb!
The point is, the recording engineer, (or mastering engineer) has to make all their creative choices of adjustment, so that the music is properly balanced and plays back well, quite irregardless of what it's played on.
If they were to use the original posters system as their monitors to record whilst they are making their creative adjustments to the sound; the music they make should sound great, played back utilising the same sound system and speakers.
But how good, how well balanced is their recording likely to sound, played back on every other type of system? The coloured sound of the original posters system would be highly likely to lead them to make fundamentally poor choices that would suddenly show up far too late after all the work was done, utilising systems their recording was never ever optimised for.
Mastering engineers utilise very expensive, highly revealing speakers that enable them to "catch" anything that the audio engineers in the highly creative situation of a recording studio might miss.
They are the last "safety" link between the recording studio and C. D. pressing plant and use much better speakers altogether than those found in recording studios.
They too, can sound much worse than speaker in recording studios, but only reveal what is there, warts and all, so that necessary corrective fixes can be applied.
You can't fix a problem that you cannot even hear!
It might be helpful to consider why people buy hi-fi and audio systems as well as sound systems for P.C.'s?
Though consumers might seek to buy a truly realistic sounding system with very expensive hi fi, overwhelmingly it is the case that consumers are seeking a sound system that significantly impresses their senses and sounds good to their ears.
Many judge such systems by the amount of bass they deliver, some the crispness of the high frequencies and some want both, but usually, although such systems are often judged very favourably by consumers, the systems themselves are highly colouring the sound.
In fact, by design and manufacture they are produced to create what is often a hyped representation of sound, that most people will find readily acceptable and even be impressed by. They are made to sound good to the average person who enjoys music, but is not an avid audio geek.
Monitors used in recording studios (and most particularly in mastering studios) should be the exact opposite of the above, in design and manufacturing terms.
For we should appreciate that these speakers are the means by which extremely subtle changes in sound are going to be judged, as the audio engineer adjusts the equalisation for instance, on a given track.
But it goes much further than that, beyond selecting a frequency to adjust, its necessary to add or cut the amount of gain, and the width or narrowness of the quality or "Q" factor which determines what other frequencies will be impacted with those changes. E.Q. compression, reverb, levels and adjustment of balance of sonorities between any number of recorded tracks need to be clearly heard, to be able to judge proper adjustment.
In fact, by design and manufacture recording studio monitors (and particularly mastering studio monitors) are designed not to sound "good", but rather to be revealing, to faithfully reflect the truth of what is happening in the mix. So that when the audio engineer makes an adjustment (no matter how subtle) what they have done can be clearly heard and understood in a highly detailed way. Otherwise, the audio engineer would have no way of genuinely appreciating what effect their adjustments have had. No way of determining when they have turned a knob enough. Or whether they should have never turned it at all!
In other words, both types of speakers have their place, but each of them are designed and manufactured differently, to fulfil a different task, to produce a different result.
With complete respect then, the original poster could be stated to be comparing apples with oranges, quite understandably so, as both types, look and sound, just like "speakers".
Here's the thing, the person making a recording has no idea whatever what type of playback system, whoever buys their recording will listen to them on. They might listen on their in-car entertainment system, inside a small, metal, glass, plastic and foam enclosure.
On the other hand, they might listen using a boom box in a bedroom. Of course, they might have a relatively inexpensive home audio system they enjoy in their living room, or even a thrilling sounding high end hi-fi system in a spacious environment that cost them a bomb!
The point is, the recording engineer, (or mastering engineer) has to make all their creative choices of adjustment, so that the music is properly balanced and plays back well, quite irregardless of what it's played on.
If they were to use the original posters system as their monitors to record whilst they are making their creative adjustments to the sound; the music they make should sound great, played back utilising the same sound system and speakers.
But how good, how well balanced is their recording likely to sound, played back on every other type of system? The coloured sound of the original posters system would be highly likely to lead them to make fundamentally poor choices that would suddenly show up far too late after all the work was done, utilising systems their recording was never ever optimised for.
Mastering engineers utilise very expensive, highly revealing speakers that enable them to "catch" anything that the audio engineers in the highly creative situation of a recording studio might miss.
They are the last "safety" link between the recording studio and C. D. pressing plant and use much better speakers altogether than those found in recording studios.
They too, can sound much worse than speaker in recording studios, but only reveal what is there, warts and all, so that necessary corrective fixes can be applied.
You can't fix a problem that you cannot even hear!
1. The context for near-field monitors is that - because they are "near" to your ears - the room should not matter much. Think of them as being almost as much like headphones as speakers.
2. Monitors should not be chosen because they make the music sound good. They should be chosen for accuracy.
3. After listening extensively to a given pair of monitors and what the same program sounds like on other speakers, it should be possible to predict what needs to be done with your mix to achieve the desired results.
2. Monitors should not be chosen because they make the music sound good. They should be chosen for accuracy.
3. After listening extensively to a given pair of monitors and what the same program sounds like on other speakers, it should be possible to predict what needs to be done with your mix to achieve the desired results.
If the room he's listening to the music in is untreated for sound, the quality of monitors is pretty much irrelevant. Bass build up in corners etc. will distort the sound. He's better off using reference headphones for quality check.
Not such a bad compromise. Most people consume music on ear buds, which are crappier than good headphones.
Not such a bad compromise. Most people consume music on ear buds, which are crappier than good headphones.
@seamonkey, AGCurry, and https://www.talkbass.com/members/anthony-buckeridge.269977/ have covered it for you, OP.
reference monitors have that name/distinction for a reason. while there may be differences in quality from one reference system to another = none of them will sound like your "computer" or your "home stereo." when you understand why, and how to exploit those differences: they will become a benefit to your recording efforts! good luck!
reference monitors have that name/distinction for a reason. while there may be differences in quality from one reference system to another = none of them will sound like your "computer" or your "home stereo." when you understand why, and how to exploit those differences: they will become a benefit to your recording efforts! good luck!
Last edited:
I'm sure I'll get blasted for this but it is what it is. Studio monitors are kind of overrated imo. Have recorded in some pretty nice studios that mainly record signed national bands and even with the best studios when it comes to mixing they will burn a CD and go out to the car and listen to it. They'll play it on a home stereo system, they'll listen to it on their iPhone with typical headphones. What really matters is how the mix sounds to your fans. Unless of course you plan on inviting all your friends over to the studio to hear it on those monitors. Some studios will track everything on one computer in the studio and then do the mixing on a laptop and actually bring the laptop out to the car and connect it to the aux in on the cars stereo and mix it in the car. The real benefit of studio monitors only really comes if you use them constantly so that you become super familiar with them. In other words anything brand new to you isn't going to be much help.
Near fields are meant to reduce the coloration that the room contributes to the perceived sound, and headphones take that principle to the extreme. When the listener is close to the speakers, they hear more of the direct sound from the speakers, and less reflected sound from the room modes, hence the "near" in near field.
Many engineers have speakers of various generic qualities to compare their mixes on, but they still need some full spectrum speakers to check things like bass, kick drum and other low spectrum instruments that would be impossible to assess on Auratones, or other small speakers that fall off quickly below 100Hz.
