|
Post by svart on Apr 16, 2021 10:04:47 GMT -6
Nah, doesn't really work like that. Not for me anyway I'm making different decisions based on what the speakers tell me. Here's a great philosophical question for you... Why is it that if every company who builds & markets studio monitors says their stuff is "flat" then why do they all sound so damn different?! Monitors can serve different purposes and I guess it depends on the work your doing. Some are better for long, loud tracking sessions. Some are more accurate for mixing. Some are good for checking what things are gonna sound like on a $29 bluetooth speaker. And some monitors are in the room not because they sound great but because they're a known reference. Howie Weinberg has NS10 & KRK in his room not because he listens to them and makes adjustments, but because artists come in and need to listen to speakers they're familiar with. Its as valid a reason as anything else. I spend probably 80% of my time on one set of monitors usually the BM15. Full range midfield. I'll swap to nearfields at various points in the process often in mono... check balances and maybe do some rides. I'll also use the alternates as a way to save my ears through the day. Prime example is checking out reference material or background music on breaks. I'll play those over whatever set isn't the primary. One thing I don't do is jump around from A to B and back and ride the monitor volume. Good way to chase your tail around. I tend to work more like a mastering engineer... find a spot and park it. So times I need to crank it up then turn down real low? Its usually the alternate monitors. But it kindve sounds like you’re making my argument for me. Yes, everyone claims they’re flat. They’re not. But if you find a set that you get amazing translation from, I just don’t understand why you need two. Like aurotones - what’s the purpose? To see what it sounds like on a consumer speaker? Would you sacrifice the sound of your mix on near fields to make it sound better on a boom box? I guess that’s what I’m getting at. I think of it as two situations. One is that while a monitor might translate almost perfectly, there's always something that gets presented differently. Two different types of monitor might half the chance that you miss something. The second is that our ears and brain are notoriously good at ignoring certain sounds we get used to. Using the same monitors over time will exacerbate this scenario and sometimes switching to something wildly different highlights the tones we're subconsciously ignoring.
|
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 14,940
|
Post by ericn on Apr 16, 2021 11:28:05 GMT -6
The Auratone had a specific purpose, it was a universal standard of what at the time a crappy car, TV or table top radio would sound like. It is not a great midrange speaker, it’s a speaker that’s just midrange. Now the idea of multiple monitors is because they all suck and none are really flat. Having a couple of speakers that do different things well and offer a different frequency range is a one way to judge how something is going to sound in different environments. Most studios in the days of glory also were not just doing Music, a lot of the Ad and post work would not see a mastering engineers touch so you had to make sure you didn’t have any real HF and LF problems at the studio. Because of the high distortion, being anything but truly flat freq response and the difference in rooms, no one speaker is going to offer a decent idea of how every speaker out there sounds. Most will work primarily off of the near field of choice using other near fields and mains as checks as they go along. Others are constantly switching from one speaker to another. By definition near fields are not meant to fill or cover the whole room. They are meant to be listened to in the near field, not the couch so the mains were there to cover a full room and of course we can’t forget the very important look cool enough to get you laid factor. Just thinking more about this. I use Tonal balance and other tools to confirm what I’m hearing - wonder if software is taking the place of multiple monitors? In a very one dimensional way probably, you can correct for phase and frequency response fairly easily via DSP, but not for the distortion. You have to remember most of the distortion of a speaker is not an electronic function but a physical mechanical function. It’s literally how the cone moves or dosen’t move. This where ATC specifically has a huge advantage and yet a disadvantage at the same time, they don’t distort quite like other speakers, great I can hear what it sounds like without distortion, they don’t sound like other speakers shit They don’t sound like anything else. Kind of a catch 22. Keep in mind in the 60’s and early 70’s what you found in studio mains would be pretty similar to what would be a highend home system. JBL, EV, Altec and klipsch. Big horns meant high SPL with very little power.
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on Apr 16, 2021 11:52:25 GMT -6
I've always thought that mixing on relatively small near field or mid-field monitors works best, and then having some huge speakers available when the mix is complete to see how the bass and vocal translates at higher volume. I let quite a few songs of mine go where the vocal was probably 1.5 db too hot. When you crank that, the vocals jumps out instead of the entire mix being raised in volume.
|
|
|
Post by subspace on Apr 16, 2021 14:15:22 GMT -6
I mix on three different speakers, my midfield Westlakes are the only ones that actually reveal details in a mix, my nearfield NS-10s tell me how my midrange translates with a healthy helping of THD, and my boombox at 90 degrees tells me how the majority of the planet hears it, with the bass and treble on 10 and pointed away from the listener.
|
|
|
Post by jmoose on Apr 17, 2021 16:54:00 GMT -6
But it kindve sounds like you’re making my argument for me. Yes, everyone claims they’re flat. They’re not. But if you find a set that you get amazing translation from, I just don’t understand why you need two. Like aurotones - what’s the purpose? To see what it sounds like on a consumer speaker? Would you sacrifice the sound of your mix on near fields to make it sound better on a boom box? I guess that’s what I’m getting at. Compromise isn't a word I'd ever think of but yeah, something like that. Its about making choices based on different perspectives. Spend a few hours on one speaker and when switching to the alternate I'll almost always catch something that I was overlooking & too comfortable with... Vocal is buried & needs a bump. Oh wow that snares ripping loud! Maybe some reverb is popping out more then expected... is that a problem? Its also different tasks like a loud tracking session vs mixing. If I'm working with a band cutting takes they're gonna wanna listen louder and want something that can move some air... I want something that's kinda easy on the ears so I don't blow out in 3 hours in. When I'm mixing that's less of a concern and I can aim for detail. If one pair of speakers is getting it done for you that's rad. Really was just initially wondering if you had something like a Smackie big knob in the path...
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Apr 17, 2021 18:25:55 GMT -6
But it kindve sounds like you’re making my argument for me. Yes, everyone claims they’re flat. They’re not. But if you find a set that you get amazing translation from, I just don’t understand why you need two. Like aurotones - what’s the purpose? To see what it sounds like on a consumer speaker? Would you sacrifice the sound of your mix on near fields to make it sound better on a boom box? I guess that’s what I’m getting at. Compromise isn't a word I'd ever think of but yeah, something like that. Its about making choices based on different perspectives. Spend a few hours on one speaker and when switching to the alternate I'll almost always catch something that I was overlooking & too comfortable with... Vocal is buried & needs a bump. Oh wow that snares ripping loud! Maybe some reverb is popping out more then expected... is that a problem? Its also different tasks like a loud tracking session vs mixing. If I'm working with a band cutting takes they're gonna wanna listen louder and want something that can move some air... I want something that's kinda easy on the ears so I don't blow out in 3 hours in. When I'm mixing that's less of a concern and I can aim for detail. If one pair of speakers is getting it done for you that's rad. Really was just initially wondering if you had something like a Smackie big knob in the path... I could see it being like taking breaks - you just get a different point of reference maybe and give your ears a break from the monotony of it all.
|
|
|
Post by nick8801 on Apr 18, 2021 12:49:03 GMT -6
This thread took a left turn somewhere lol....
ATC’s and earbuds for me. Kind of covers both extremes. I also like to reference a mix or two in a similar style.
|
|