Lethe
I'm a complete noob when it comes to recording and mixing.
Anyways, I'm wondering what speakers should be used when mixing and listening to a track. I've got some sort of monitors (which seem pretty good- M audio, BX5a). So when I mix through them and listen to the track through them, it sounds pretty good. But as soon as I play the track through my laptop speakers, the levels and eqs are usually off. So I usually go back and readjust levels etc.
so my question is: To what kind of speaker should one set the track to? On amazing speakers, most things sound good. I'm aware that my laptop has less bass response etc, but how does one get a track to sound good on most speakers?
AlanRatcliffe
Your speakers are up to the task - yes, you can get better, but you should be able to get good mixes on the BX5s. If it's not treated, the room you are mixing on is more likely to have an adverse influence on how you mix than the speakers.
Mix to the sound of the monitors, burn an audio CD and try it on as many systems as possible to check for portability. Your home HiFi, a home cinema system with a sub and - most importantly - on a car CD system (car systems are good at bringing out any problems). Remix/remaster as neccessary. Don't forget to compare with a commercial CD of similar music - one you know well - on each system (for comparison and to "fix" your ears on it as a baseline reference.
If you are going to be distributing via mp3, it's a good idea to check again after conversion to mp3. Also check the mp3 itself on the systems you can expect it to be played on: an IPod and a pair of normal computer-type speakers. You can have a perfect mix in the master file, but when you convert, end up needing to adjust a few things to make up for the losses in the mp3.
Actually, the one system I wouldn't bother checking it on is a laptop - everything always sounds bad on those.
Neps
+1 to Alan!!
Another thing I do whilst mixing is to import a commercial song of the same 'feel' into my DAW, and listen to how it sounds through my monitors and soundcard.
This helps a lot also to get to 'know' your monitors and their EQ response. It also makes you more aware of any acoustic problems in the space you are mixing in.
deanBailey
Pretty much what Alan and Neps said! ?
I was also in the same boat in the beginning where I was convinced the poor mixing was due to bad monitors. (everything but the skills ? eh)
I was planning on getting a set of genelec 1032's but I realised my I've already learned my KRK 6's and how they respond to other systems so that might have been a step backwards having to relearn another pair.
Lately I test on
- Ipod earphones
- Boombox laying around the house
- Even laptop speakers just to hear if the frequencies above 500 Hz are harsh or not.
- Sennheisier HD280's
- The car like Alan said is the best because it's probably one of the best acoustically treated areas (that you don't have to pay and ar... nvm). Confined space, seats absorb, no standing waves, angled windows etc. Depending on the system it can be bass heavy so I test my low end there.
TomCat
+1 Alan and Neps.
All very good advice there. Not much more I can add except to stress how important the room response influences the overall mix / EQ.
deanBailey
lol
Lethe
Thanks a lot to all of you! I'll be entering this weeks challenge, so hopefully you guys can give me some criticism in that department as well.
Do you guys every try mix through headphones? I do that sometimes.... Sennheiser HD 202. They very bassy though... I guess that would take the room accoustics somewhat out of the question... but probably change the way you percieve the different frequencies?
AlanRatcliffe
Headphones are great for tracking and are good for picking out detail, so can be used for first, rough mix. Unfortunately, they also give you a very different impression of the mix, so should never be used for final mixes.
A mix done entirely on headphones will usually be too dry as reverb usually is more apparent in headphones, so you tend to mix with less. Also your stereo placement will likely be off, as in normal speaker listening/monitoring, both ears hear both speakers - with headphones each ear only hears one speaker.
Lethe
good point. very interesting. thanks! ?
Neps
Headphones are awesome to listen to 'delay' tails, and how the overall balance looks like. But as Alan said, they give a very different perspective to how it actually will sound through speakers.. You're correct with the Bass heavyness of the Sennheisers. I love them though because of that. I can judge better then if the bass is in tune and if the kick and bass are not competing for the same space.
My Beyerdynamics dont sound like that and I've resorted back to my Sennheisers. ☹ (you'd expect the Beyers to actually do
the job)
But yet again.. +1 Alan..
DonovanB
Neps wrote
Another thing I do whilst mixing is to import a commercial song of the same 'feel' into my DAW, and listen to how it sounds through my monitors and soundcard.
an interesting thing I saw JP at B# Studios do was to take a transparency and copy the graph from the FFT filter of a similar song, then manipulate your project to be similar using the transparency as a guide.
I see in the newer versions of samplitude you can import a song onto the pug-in to do just that.
AlanRatcliffe
Neps wrote
You're correct with the Bass heavyness of the Sennheisers. I love them though because of that. I can judge better then if the bass is in tune and if the kick and bass are not competing for the same space.
My favourite 'phones are the Sennheiser HD250s, which I used for years. Not bass heavy at all - if anything, they are bass light, but detail... They are like the NS10s of headphones. Had some HD265s, which had more bass, but the detail was not good.
I got tired of replacing the Sennheiser cables though. Tried out a few pairs and narrowed it down to the Fostex T-60 and the Roland HD-200. Ended up with the Rolands, but regret it as the cups are smaller (damn those fiendish Japanese and their small ears) - my pinnae (auricles, or as my mother would call 'em -ear lugs) actually hurt after a few hours.
Neps
LOL @ Alan.. I know what you mean by the 'Japanese and their small ears!'. I've got a nice big set of ears and the Sennheisers just don't fit that well, but I've learnt to handle the pain. The Beyers are nice and big, but they just don't do it for me. But they do make it easy to replace the foam, cables and any other piece of it that is broken. But as for detail, nope, I can't stand them.
AlanRatcliffe
DonovanB wrote
an interesting thing I saw JP at B# Studios do was to take a transparency and copy the graph from the FFT filter of a similar song, then manipulate your project to be similar using the transparency as a guide.
I forget the name, but I had one of the first plugs to do that (I forget the name). It worked, but I didn't like the results. I don't think that just because you can shoehorn one song's EQ to match another, you should do it. I try to approach each as a different animal with different requirements.
TomCat
Alan Ratcliffe wrote
Neps wrote
You're correct with the Bass heavyness of the Sennheisers. I love them though because of that. I can judge better then if the bass is in tune and if the kick and bass are not competing for the same space.
My favourite 'phones are the Sennheiser HD250s, which I used for years. Not bass heavy at all - if anything, they are bass light, but detail... They are like the NS10s of headphones. Had some HD265s, which had more bass, but the detail was not good.
I got tired of replacing the Sennheiser cables though. Tried out a few pairs and narrowed it down to the Fostex T-60 and the Roland HD-200. Ended up with the Rolands, but regret it as the cups are smaller (damn those fiendish Japanese and their small ears) - my pinnae (auricles, or as my mother would call 'em -ear lugs) actually hurt after a few hours.
I've been using Beyerdynamic DT150's for about 20 years now (Same pair) - Large German "ears"....HaHa.......Very comfortable to use. Linear response so nice and accurate and detailed.....Suits me to the "T"....Also very efficient and isolates well so very nice for live work....
majestikc
"an interesting thing I saw JP at B# Studios do was to take a transparency and copy the graph from the FFT filter of a similar song, then manipulate your project to be similar using the transparency as a guide."
That's probably one of the craziest things I've ever heard of, a sure fire way to ruin a mix........
DonovanB
Not really. The intention was to get the frequesncy responses similar to another song.
The reality is that unless you're doing a cover of that song or are trying to recreate it, it is pointless. But its a cool cheat if you're mocking a demo of a song in a short time.
majestikc
But surely the frequency response will be changing all the time, or is it a copy of a paused section, which would still be just a copy of a single second of the music's frequency spectrum.
DonovanB
FFT responds to that change constantly. Its not like taking the Equalizer and copying the settings.
Equalisation will remain constant while the fourier transform will change according to what it hears. Its freaking complicated, and I hope someone knows more about it but it's definitely not straight equalisation.
(Fast Fourier Transform) An algorithm based on Fourier Theory that Adobe Audition uses for filtering, Spectral View, and Frequency Analysis features. Fourier Theory states that any waveform consists of an infinite sum of sine and cosine functions, allowing frequency and amplitude to be quickly analyzed. Higher FFT sizes create more precise results but take longer to process
from Samplitude Help;
Some areas of application of this tool are:
Checking and correction of the frequency response of your recording or mix.
High-precision frequency measurement, for instance, for verifying the tuning of instruments.
High-precision filtering: From the finest nuances to full sample distortion without any changes to the phase response. Phase distortion effects like a worsening of the impulse response or of the room impression are minimized with this. Linear-phase filters do not have their own sound.
Sub-bass precision correction in the low-frequency range between 10 and 50 Hz with any increase or dampening without the effects that usually occur with filters of this kind. Ideal for bassy pop music, or for removing rumbling or footsteps.
Selectively dampens or raises the level of individual instruments or pitches from recordings.
Formant filter
Dynamic filtering: Transition between two filter curves for filter switch effects, hiding frequency variables, and much more.
Transmit frequency ranges: For example, from other mixes or rooms or loudspeakers to your own mix. This option can be very helpful if you want to improve the sound of your samples or simulate individual monitoring conditions.
Correction of the frequency range from recording and playback areas, loudspeakers, amplifiers, etc.
hectic ???
