Post by viciousbliss on Jul 1, 2017 1:53:48 GMT -6
Anyone have a problem where their monitors make stuff sound too good? I've got JBL-LSR305s, and everything sounds awesome on them. I've largely stopped using them because I'll bounce a file using nothing but the JBLs, and it will sound shrill and thin on the $100 bose desktop speakers. Famous cds don't sound like that on the Bose. Before I got them, I did extensive research. They were referred to as the "god of measurements" or something like that in one review. People reported that they measured flat in many places in a room. Even doing room treatment or using something like Sonarworks or the ARC system probably won't make them sound cruddy. Instead I've relied mainly on plugging my AKG K701s into the Audient ID14. It's not an ideal matchup due to the ID14 having something like a 32 or 64 impedance on its headphone amp, I forget which one. I'd rather use the Nwavguy designed O2 since I know it was designed with complete transparency in mind. It has to be the only headphone amp ever made where all the specs are all out there. Apparently, there's a lot else that can screw up sound besides impedance. I think Reaper picks up on the HiFiMe Dac I have, but Pro Tools doesn't. It's supposedly close to being a clone of the Odac, another Nwavguy design built for transparency. The Audient has a little more bass presence then the hifime/O2 combo, but I have a pretty good idea how to work with it.
The K701s are pretty easy to work with when it comes to headphone monitoring. No other headphone I've used for monitoring comes close to providing the results these do. In fact, other headphones make things way off. Huge and largely neutral, the K701 doesn't need me to do much Bose speaker tweaking afterward. Sound closer to a regular headphone in terms of stereo spread than something like a Senn 650 or 800. I've always found the Senn headphones a bit weird. Not as weird as the LCD stuff, those were the strangest. I've heard the top of the line, expensive Stax stuff. It was really fast but had no bass. Can't say I believe in these headphone plugins like Ref 3, Morphit, Redline Monitor, or NX. There are so many variables with the amp, dac, and soundstage that I think for a plugin to really help, it would need to be able to analyze your whole headphone setup and make intelligent adjustments. I've never found any of the plugs useful.
All of this is kinda moot when it comes to playback systems. Stuff sounds different in Pro Tools when compared to the bounced file. The bounced file can sound largely different in each playback program. Audacity sounds a lot different then Foobar, for example. To me, foobar sounds like it's doing some kinda bit reduction even though I've looked and looked to make sure I'm not setting it that way. Comparing Audacity with Foobar is like comparing the 24 bit setting to the 16 bit setting in the dither section on a limiter like L1 or Oxford. I've no idea which program is supposed to be more accurate. Since no one really listens to 24-bit files aside from some people on the Steve Hoffman forum and similar places, I guess we really need to look at the 16-bit playback. 24-bit references are not exactly guaranteed to really represent the format correctly as well. I've downloaded a few 24-bit releases over the years made by HDTracks and similar places only to find the Waveform is completely brickwalled. My guess is that defeats the point of 24-bit audio. Playing non-brickwall 24-bit releases in Foobar made them sound identical to the regular cd for the most part. Hence I've never bought much HD audio aside from a few DVD-A and SACD releases that I found very underwhelming. Today I started experimenting with using the Oxford Limiter in 16-bit mode on all busses and the master fader. Sounded better to my ears and worked better in Audacity. I had regular L1s on the tracks and am not sure what bit-rate those default too since it isn't selectable like the ultra version. It seems that mixing with the limiters set to 16-bit is yielding better results for me when I set them back to 24. Just tried replacing all the L1s with Oxfords set to 16 and I'm liking it more. We'll see, I've only started doing this today.
There's also the question of portfolio. One reason I started learning how to do this was because studios around here either A) Had no samples or B) Only had samples showing a barebones, sterile production style that they applied to everything in their portfolio. None of their sites had any written explanations as to why I should pay them $40+ an hour or more. It was just "we worked with this person, we were nominated for this award, take a look at all our gear pics". Fortunately, I think it is possible to get things sounding good on soundcloud and similar places. It's also very possible for soundcloud to do all kinds of damage to your mix or master. Then somebody hears it and thinks their stuff is going to end up with soundcloud artifacts all over it.
When doing covers, even if it's just a karaoke track and a vocal I recorded, I just keeping messing with it until it's as close as possible to the reference cd. Sometimes I think positive brand association can help overcome problems with soundcloud and other tech stuff. If studios around here were recording covers of songs I liked and got them sounding very faithful to the originals, I may have been interested in hiring them years ago. Or even if they were just using production styles I liked on songs I never heard. It's a marketable skill, I suppose, if you can recreate something people want. On audio forums you always have people asking how to sound like this or that album. Isn't that how the business always worked? Someone comes up with a production style and then a bunch of acts want that sound for their albums.
At the end of the day though, is it possible to do any better than testing your mix/master on various systems and having it translate well? I guess the question is how difficult your monitoring system makes it for you to get there.
The K701s are pretty easy to work with when it comes to headphone monitoring. No other headphone I've used for monitoring comes close to providing the results these do. In fact, other headphones make things way off. Huge and largely neutral, the K701 doesn't need me to do much Bose speaker tweaking afterward. Sound closer to a regular headphone in terms of stereo spread than something like a Senn 650 or 800. I've always found the Senn headphones a bit weird. Not as weird as the LCD stuff, those were the strangest. I've heard the top of the line, expensive Stax stuff. It was really fast but had no bass. Can't say I believe in these headphone plugins like Ref 3, Morphit, Redline Monitor, or NX. There are so many variables with the amp, dac, and soundstage that I think for a plugin to really help, it would need to be able to analyze your whole headphone setup and make intelligent adjustments. I've never found any of the plugs useful.
All of this is kinda moot when it comes to playback systems. Stuff sounds different in Pro Tools when compared to the bounced file. The bounced file can sound largely different in each playback program. Audacity sounds a lot different then Foobar, for example. To me, foobar sounds like it's doing some kinda bit reduction even though I've looked and looked to make sure I'm not setting it that way. Comparing Audacity with Foobar is like comparing the 24 bit setting to the 16 bit setting in the dither section on a limiter like L1 or Oxford. I've no idea which program is supposed to be more accurate. Since no one really listens to 24-bit files aside from some people on the Steve Hoffman forum and similar places, I guess we really need to look at the 16-bit playback. 24-bit references are not exactly guaranteed to really represent the format correctly as well. I've downloaded a few 24-bit releases over the years made by HDTracks and similar places only to find the Waveform is completely brickwalled. My guess is that defeats the point of 24-bit audio. Playing non-brickwall 24-bit releases in Foobar made them sound identical to the regular cd for the most part. Hence I've never bought much HD audio aside from a few DVD-A and SACD releases that I found very underwhelming. Today I started experimenting with using the Oxford Limiter in 16-bit mode on all busses and the master fader. Sounded better to my ears and worked better in Audacity. I had regular L1s on the tracks and am not sure what bit-rate those default too since it isn't selectable like the ultra version. It seems that mixing with the limiters set to 16-bit is yielding better results for me when I set them back to 24. Just tried replacing all the L1s with Oxfords set to 16 and I'm liking it more. We'll see, I've only started doing this today.
There's also the question of portfolio. One reason I started learning how to do this was because studios around here either A) Had no samples or B) Only had samples showing a barebones, sterile production style that they applied to everything in their portfolio. None of their sites had any written explanations as to why I should pay them $40+ an hour or more. It was just "we worked with this person, we were nominated for this award, take a look at all our gear pics". Fortunately, I think it is possible to get things sounding good on soundcloud and similar places. It's also very possible for soundcloud to do all kinds of damage to your mix or master. Then somebody hears it and thinks their stuff is going to end up with soundcloud artifacts all over it.
When doing covers, even if it's just a karaoke track and a vocal I recorded, I just keeping messing with it until it's as close as possible to the reference cd. Sometimes I think positive brand association can help overcome problems with soundcloud and other tech stuff. If studios around here were recording covers of songs I liked and got them sounding very faithful to the originals, I may have been interested in hiring them years ago. Or even if they were just using production styles I liked on songs I never heard. It's a marketable skill, I suppose, if you can recreate something people want. On audio forums you always have people asking how to sound like this or that album. Isn't that how the business always worked? Someone comes up with a production style and then a bunch of acts want that sound for their albums.
At the end of the day though, is it possible to do any better than testing your mix/master on various systems and having it translate well? I guess the question is how difficult your monitoring system makes it for you to get there.
