Why should I mix on good monitors?

[Alaska Bass]

I would disagree. Ns-10s are lousy monitors, and thats what they are supposed to be. They are book shelf or boom box speakers. Studios use these or auratones to check midrange and lowest common denominator. They do have their place but they arent a good set of first monitors.

I have heard of people getting them as their only monitors, but its really hard to learn to mix on these alone. They are DEFINATELY not flat.

+1

Yamaha NS-10 (not the M version) have their place in most recording studios, but not as the primary go to monitors for critical listening and mixing. There are plenty of sub $600 monitors available, read up on them and you can find something acceptable.

 

[Alaska Bass]

what would you suggest then?

For less than $500 a pair, Event IMHO makes the most useable monitor. For $1000 a pair try Mackie HR824's, beyond that, save up and use Genelec or Meyer HD1's.

 

[msquared]

I'd like to add that if AND ONLY IF you are cross-checking your mixes with other speakers, mixing on a set of good headphones will give you a far better bang for your buck than any sub-$1000 monitor as far as doing hardcore analysis of your mixes is concerned. You don't ever want to use headphones as your only mixing source IMO but if you have a lot of listening time with a certain set of phones and are well aware of the sonic characteristics of those phones versus open air listening, you can pull off some great mixes.

Mind you this assumes that the phones are high end, maybe $250 and up.

 

[bkbirge]

+1

Yamaha NS-10 (not the M version) have their place in most recording studios, but not as the primary go to monitors for critical listening and mixing. There are plenty of sub $600 monitors available, read up on them and you can find something acceptable.

The M's are smoother on the top, that's the only difference I could ever tell. Most studios I've been to have the 10M's now. I love the NS-10's (both versions) but it took years for me to realize their worth. Invaluable tool, especially if you mix any sort of loud guitar music. And if anyone is ever planning on visiting a 'real' studio either to work or as a client, you'll be real happy you spent the time getting used to them. I wouldn't use them as the only speakers I mix on but I wouldn't use any set by itself only. I did work with one 'big name' producer who insisted we mix on NS-10's only and cranked so loud you couldn't talk. 4 10 hour days of that and I was ready to kill him.

Pros: Studio standard, very useful, great mids
Cons: Shrill on the top (the 10s, not so much the 10Ms), *very* fatiguing to listen to for hours on end

 

[Bruce Lindfield]

You guys are all making great points. This one, though...



I don't agree with this at all. I make music that has a pretty limited audience, and I don't pursue music for monetary gain (on the contrary, making music only costs me money). I have no aspirations of having a hit song, only music that real humans with average stereos can listen to if they're interested in my music. I think there can be a middle ground between trying to have my song on an iPod commercial and creating "aural architecture" for rich guys with $30,000 turntables.

For instance, I read something about Venetian Snares mixing one of his albums in 12.6 (six speakers each on the ceiling and wall, and 6 subs on the floor, all surrounding you in 3 dimensions). Clearly his "artistic credibility" wouldn't compromise the vision he had for his own "aural architecture", even though this record would be completely unlistenable to anyone without a 12.6 stereo, thus decreasing his audience from what was rather small to begin with, down to just himself. To me, that's pretty ridiculous. I think it's possible that there's something in between making music only for yourself and making music with the intent to be on MTV.

Did I say there wasn't ...? I was just answering your question and as you say you disagree - this is obviously why you felt the need to ask it!!

But - Art is the answer - people who feel they should never compromise their Art, won't care about whether or not anybody else can appreciate it!

And as soon as you start thinking about the potential audience, you are in effect making compromises with your Art!

Did Leonardo Da Vinci or Michelangelo care about whether people would be looking at their Art on an iPhone!!

 

[EricF]

Something that's been touched on by others, but I want to bring more light to...

Typical stereo speakers will emphasize certain frequency ranges because it's flattering for listening on that particular set of speakers. However, if you use those speakers as mixing monitors and to try to get a balanced mix, it won't be balanced on another set of speakers with emphasis at different frequencies. For example, if your monitors have a 6dB emphasis at 120Hz a mix that sounds balanced on those monitors may be significantly lacking at 120Hz on another system. The opposite is true, of course. If your monitirs are lacking in a certian frequency range, that range will end up emphasized.

Ideally, monitors should produce as flat a frequency response as possible over the whole spectrum. Mixing is about making the music translate in as many environments as possible - iPod, car, boombox, audiophile system, computer speakers, etc. The best way to do that is by starting with flat monitoring.

The room the monitors are in will also play a huge part in the sonic picutre. The room can also cause peaks and valleys in the frequency response. Spending a lot of money on monitors is only half the story. Room treatment is just as critical to accurate monitoring.

Some sources of info that have been helpful for me...
Invalid Link Removed
www.gikacoustics.com/education.html

 

[Taylor Livingston]

Did I say there wasn't ...? I was just answering your question and as you say you disagree - this is obviously why you felt the need to ask it!!

But - Art is the answer - people who feel they should never compromise their Art, won't care about whether or not anybody else can appreciate it!

And as soon as you start thinking about the potential audience, you are in effect making compromises with your Art!

Did Leonardo Da Vinci or Michelangelo care about whether people would be looking at their Art on an iPhone!!

I feel like you didn't really read my post. Let me ask you this: if you were to play a gig on DB where you couldn't be heard acoustically, would you amplify your doublebass? Surely this would be a compromise in sound quality for the sake of being heard by your audience. Would you refuse to amplify your instrument so as to remain true to your artistic intent?

For that matter, why record or perform at all? A recording or performance is rarely perfectly loyal to the music as it is in your head, so why ruin it just so other people can hear it?

As I understand it, the point of mixing on speakers with a flat EQ curve is so that it sounds good on lots of different equipment (here's the answer to my original question). But it sound to me like you (talking to Bruce here) are saying the opposite: "Who cares what it sounds like on other people's speakers? Music should be made for the musician's sake, not for the audience." So, I know that you would never in a million years concede a point, so I won't hold my breath for you to agree, but I think you're a bit off with this one.

Thanks for the replies, everyone else. Now I have yet another thing to spend money on!

 

[tZer]

Am I wrong? I'm sure the ideal situation is to listen to your recordings on as many different setups as possible,...

I don't think you are wrong. I am new to this end of the game, but anyone I talk to about mixing tells me that you should always use a variety of reference setups, from your near-field monitors to a boom box to your car stereo.

I think the goal is to make what you produce sound consistent so that when someone takes your CD from their hi-end home stereo and pops in their lo-end car stereo it doesn't sound like two completely different recordings.

but what's the point in getting everything to sound right on super-flat response speakers in a deadened room, when this isn't at all similar to the average person's stereo?

My approach is to consider my audience - which ranges my wife (a non-audiophile) to my bandmates to my home/pro studio friends. I want all of them to be able to listen to what I produce and NOT find there to be flaws or obvious 'mixing' errors. Whether they think it's a masterwork of mixing genius - I am not that delusional. I will settle for "It sounds good to me."

...Does anyone here use average speakers (or headphones) for this reason, rather than (or in addition to) financial reasons?

Headphones are for dipping in and out - not for mixing, IMO. I have done entire mixes in headphones and invariably been disappointed with how they sound anywhere else.

When I cannot use my 'reasonable' monitors (Alesis Monitor One MK II, Passives), I use my el-cheapo Aiwa bookshelf stereo (that I've had since 1989) with all of those factory EQ thingys turned off. No "Bass boost" - No "Classic, pop, rock, jazz" EQ.

Even though this $1.98 stereo from the late 80's sounds more like a boom box than a stereo, when I mix stuff so that it sounds good on it, I find it usually sounds pretty good elsewhere.

 

[cmhgreg]

You guys are all making great points. This one, though...



I don't agree with this at all. I make music that has a pretty limited audience, and I don't pursue music for monetary gain (on the contrary, making music only costs me money). I have no aspirations of having a hit song, only music that real humans with average stereos can listen to if they're interested in my music.

No problem with that, but if you want your music to sound good to those real humans on their average stereos, you are still going to need decent monitors.

When I first started out trying to mix down practice recordings for my band, I didn't have any monitors, just a set of $100 Sony 7506 (which are damn fine cans), which I thought should be more than sufficient. Same thought process -- I figured that only 6 to 10 people were ever going to hear these discs and they were going to be listening to them in their cars or on their iPods. After a few months, I bought monitors. The problem, for me, was in trying to get a mix that didn't suck. It's the low end that gets tricky when you are trying to mix on speakers that don't have good low end. I would mix the material so it sounded good on the 7506s (which have decent bass for headphones), but I would take it into my car and it would sound terrible, too boomy and muddy, to the point where I didn't even want to listen to it (and I was playing bass on the track!) Too much trial and error, and too many late night trips to the garage to listen to music in my car ended up forcing me to get a halfway decent set of monitors. And now I spend a lot less time mixing, and the mixes sound the way I want them to. And all 6 people that ever listen to this stuff like the mixes a lot better too!

One thing I have found out about mixing and mastering, there are no shortcuts (or very few anyway).

 

[Bruce Lindfield]

I feel like you didn't really read my post. Let me ask you this: if you were to play a gig on DB where you couldn't be heard acoustically, would you amplify your doublebass? Surely this would be a compromise in sound quality for the sake of being heard by your audience. Would you refuse to amplify your instrument so as to remain true to your artistic intent?

No - I use the very best Hi-Fi bass amp and cabs I can buy - that's why I use EA gear!

Not a tinny guitar amp or similar .....if you care about sound then you care about it sounding the best it possibly can!

Same with studio monitors!

 

[Taylor Livingston]

Do you feel that your amplified DB really sounds the same as when you're listening to it acoustically? I'm not asking this rhetorically, I'm genuinely curious. I've heard amplified DB sound good and bad, but even when it's good it's not like what a good doublebass sounds like acoustically. This is, of course, in my somewhat limited experience, as a person who doesn't like going to jazz shows (which is where you're most likely to hear a nice doublebass through an amp, as opposed to your typical psychobilly show).

 

[Bruce Lindfield]

Well - of course the point is that many times I have heard my DB badly amplified and them I am uninspired and less motivated to play well.

So I make the effort to own and use only the very best amplification - I take my EA VL208s with me as they the most "Hi Fi" cabs I have ever heard - due to the combination of 8" and smaller speakers in a great cab.

When I hear my DB through these cabs it sounds great and I am more likely to play well!

So similarly I can imagine that when people "create" a mix - as a work of Art - then they are more inspired when using the best possible monitor speakers - as opposed to just churning out a mix to sell to the lowest common denominator.....

 

[alexclaber]

I've been very impressed with the Tascam VL-X5 as a very low budget monitor that has the transparency and depth of much more expensive speakers. I also compare the mix through cheap computer speakers, home hi-fi, in-car system (with subwoofer), and headphones.

Alex

 

[Gegatso]

I would disagree. Ns-10s are lousy monitors, and thats what they are supposed to be. They are book shelf or boom box speakers. Studios use these or auratones to check midrange and lowest common denominator. They do have their place but they arent a good set of first monitors.

I have heard of people getting them as their only monitors, but its really hard to learn to mix on these alone. They are DEFINATELY not flat.

Yeah, I agree. It reminds me of being a in a studio in the 80's and seeing these really fancy monitors and then the engineer says something like "the most important speakers we have are the cheap car stereo one's since that's what we use to see what the music is going to sound like in a normal situation." -- pretty good advice, I think. Since then I have seen the auratones for just that purpose again, to give a "so-so" representation of the mix.

FWIW as always
~Mark

 

[Alaska Bass]

The M's are smoother on the top, that's the only difference I could ever tell. Most studios I've been to have the 10M's now. I love the NS-10's (both versions) but it took years for me to realize their worth. Invaluable tool, especially if you mix any sort of loud guitar music. And if anyone is ever planning on visiting a 'real' studio either to work or as a client, you'll be real happy you spent the time getting used to them. I wouldn't use them as the only speakers I mix on but I wouldn't use any set by itself only. I did work with one 'big name' producer who insisted we mix on NS-10's only and cranked so loud you couldn't talk. 4 10 hour days of that and I was ready to kill him.

Pros: Studio standard, very useful, great mids
Cons: Shrill on the top (the 10s, not so much the 10Ms), *very* fatiguing to listen to for hours on end

The NS-10's harshness in the top end is the most valuable trait of all. It allows a very close proximity to many lower quality radios (boomboxes, etc.) The smoothing out of the high end that you described for the 10M's makes for a more pleasant sound in the recording environment, but does not translate well into real world.

BTW, NS-10's have the ability to help create a mix that will translate well, but it only shines, when the mix is loud. That is why he had them so loud. Personally though, if he was a big name producer, he should have been using real monitors for the 4 days, with spot checks on the 10's.

 

[Dirk Diggler]

OK I'll add my 2 cents. To me it's more important for you to mix on speakers you normally listen to music on. You need a "reference" hence the name. If on your normal speakers compared to other music your stuff sounds like too much bass or boom, you can then adjust accordingly. However I must admit that I'm stuck with JBL's that I've had for several years and can absolutely hear when things aren't what I expect in my recordings. I've always hated mixes on various Studio monitors, when taken to the real world the mixes are extremely different.

OK here's the mind blowing moment, am I then still mixing to my monitors reality or the studios? Actually as stated earlier I do listen on multiple systems for instance in my vehicle, computer speakers, other peoples setups, boom boxes, headphones, in ear monitors, and various PA systems including taking it too your local music store to check out PA cabs. If you can get it sounding good in as many places as you can then you have what you are striving for. I hope that made any sense.

Good luck,
Dirk

 

[Basshole]

The answer lies somewhere between bkbirge's answer, and bluestarbass's for my money.

Yes, you do use a number of different monitors to check your mixes (or should, as BK said)...but NS-10s became an industry standard because they SUCK (as Bluestar pointed out), much like why "horrortones" became a standard.

The bottom line is this: Use what seems to create the most "universal" mixes for you, and try to use something that isn't fatiguing, and harmful to your head with long exposure.

I finally settled on Genelec 1030a monitors.

Almost NO fatigue, even after 8 hours in front of them, and mixes translate VERY well to other listening systems and environments, proving to be extremely universal, with no big surprises popping out on other systems.

 

[Basshole]

BTW, don't underestimate the dangers of bad monitoring to your hearing.

I used to use Tannoy PBM 6.5s, and I'd wake up the next day after a session with my head all full of fluid (my sinuses), feeling like total crap, and deaf as a plank.

The Genelecs cost a bundle, but saved my hearing. YMMV.

 

[i_got_a_mohawk]

On the slightly cheaper end of the scale, KRKs dont seem to be fatiguing. I use mine (KRK RP6 SEs) as my computer speakers about 90% of the time, just because im trying to get used to them. And ive not had any problems when mixing for ages on them

 

[Bruce Lindfield]

I think people are losing sight of the actual question here...?

So - it's NOT :

"What's the best way to do a mix ?" or "what do you use to mix?" etc.

The question was why anybody would use the highest possible quality monitors?