Add group to favorites
Back to post list
Send new message to group Search:
Post Subject:
Do monitor speakers always going to lack on bass?
Do monitor speakers always going to lack on bass?
I have the Alesis M1 520's but I think I'm going to return them
because the lack of bass. I think I'm going to try the Rokit RP8's. Am
I going to get the same results with a biggerset of monitors (8in vs
5in), I'm buying monitors because they are powered, they have more
detail than your usual speaker (unless you know of another type of
speakers at that price range that lets you hear every detail) and
because I want to make music too. Would an EQ help get more bass?
I have the Alesis M1 520's but I think I'm going to return them
because the lack of bass. I think I'm going to try the Rokit RP8's. Am
I going to get the same results with a biggerset of monitors (8in vs
5in), I'm buying monitors because they are powered, they have more
detail than your usual speaker (unless you know of another type of
speakers at that price range that lets you hear every detail) and
because I want to make music too. Would an EQ help get more bass?
Re: Do monitor speakers always going to lack on bass?
On Thu, 15 May 2008 13:50:16 -0700 (PDT), akbal <adg00101@gmail,com >
wrote:
>I have the Alesis M1 520's but I think I'm going to return them
>because the lack of bass. I think I'm going to try the Rokit RP8's. Am
>I going to get the same results with a biggerset of monitors (8in vs
>5in), I'm buying monitors because they are powered, they have more
>detail than your usual speaker (unless you know of another type of
>speakers at that price range that lets you hear every detail) and
>because I want to make music too. Would an EQ help get more bass?
All speakers have the same amount of detail unless they are actually
broken. All that powered monitors offer is a space in the rack where a
power amp would have been. What you are talking about is the
difference between good and bad monitor speakers. Have a listen to
some Tannoy Reveals, which have fine eq adjustment built in, as well
as a very adequate bass extension.
But you don't eq a monitor chain to get the sound you like - you do it
to get an accurate representation of what you have recorded. This is
all a bit chicken and egg because unless you take your mix to some
studio that is already monitoring well and set it up there, you have
no way of knowing whether your mix or your monitoring is bad.
The best way is to get hold of some recordings that are similar to
what you are trying for and set up your monitoring system so they
sound right. That way you know that if you make yours sound the same,
they will be good.
d
--
Pearce Consulting
http :// www .pearce.uk,com
On Thu, 15 May 2008 13:50:16 -0700 (PDT), akbal <adg00101@gmail,com >
wrote:
>I have the Alesis M1 520's but I think I'm going to return them
>because the lack of bass. I think I'm going to try the Rokit RP8's. Am
>I going to get the same results with a biggerset of monitors (8in vs
>5in), I'm buying monitors because they are powered, they have more
>detail than your usual speaker (unless you know of another type of
>speakers at that price range that lets you hear every detail) and
>because I want to make music too. Would an EQ help get more bass?
All speakers have the same amount of detail unless they are actually
broken. All that powered monitors offer is a space in the rack where a
power amp would have been. What you are talking about is the
difference between good and bad monitor speakers. Have a listen to
some Tannoy Reveals, which have fine eq adjustment built in, as well
as a very adequate bass extension.
But you don't eq a monitor chain to get the sound you like - you do it
to get an accurate representation of what you have recorded. This is
all a bit chicken and egg because unless you take your mix to some
studio that is already monitoring well and set it up there, you have
no way of knowing whether your mix or your monitoring is bad.
The best way is to get hold of some recordings that are similar to
what you are trying for and set up your monitoring system so they
sound right. That way you know that if you make yours sound the same,
they will be good.
d
--
Pearce Consulting
http :// www .pearce.uk,com
Re: Do monitor speakers always going to lack on bass?
On May 15, 1:00 pm, nos...@nospam,com (Don Pearce) wrote:
> On Thu, 15 May 2008 13:50:16 -0700 (PDT), akbal <adg00...@gmail,com >
> wrote:
>
> >I have the Alesis M1 520's but I think I'm going to return them
> >because the lack of bass. I think I'm going to try the Rokit RP8's. Am
> >I going to get the same results with a biggerset of monitors (8in vs
> >5in), I'm buying monitors because they are powered, they have more
> >detail than your usual speaker (unless you know of another type of
> >speakers at that price range that lets you hear every detail) and
> >because I want to make music too. Would an EQ help get more bass?
>
> All speakers have the same amount of detail unless they are actually
> broken. All that powered monitors offer is a space in the rack where a
> power amp would have been. What you are talking about is the
> difference between good and bad monitor speakers. Have a listen to
> some Tannoy Reveals, which have fine eq adjustment built in, as well
> as a very adequate bass extension.
>
> But you don't eq a monitor chain to get the sound you like - you do it
> to get an accurate representation of what you have recorded. This is
> all a bit chicken and egg because unless you take your mix to some
> studio that is already monitoring well and set it up there, you have
> no way of knowing whether your mix or your monitoring is bad.
>
> The best way is to get hold of some recordings that are similar to
> what you are trying for and set up your monitoring system so they
> sound right. That way you know that if you make yours sound the same,
> they will be good.
>
> d
> --
> Pearce Consulting http :// www .pearce.uk,com
I'll checkout those Tannoy's
I've learned allot today, thanks!
Akbal
On May 15, 1:00 pm, nos...@nospam,com (Don Pearce) wrote:
> On Thu, 15 May 2008 13:50:16 -0700 (PDT), akbal <adg00...@gmail,com >
> wrote:
>
> >I have the Alesis M1 520's but I think I'm going to return them
> >because the lack of bass. I think I'm going to try the Rokit RP8's. Am
> >I going to get the same results with a biggerset of monitors (8in vs
> >5in), I'm buying monitors because they are powered, they have more
> >detail than your usual speaker (unless you know of another type of
> >speakers at that price range that lets you hear every detail) and
> >because I want to make music too. Would an EQ help get more bass?
>
> All speakers have the same amount of detail unless they are actually
> broken. All that powered monitors offer is a space in the rack where a
> power amp would have been. What you are talking about is the
> difference between good and bad monitor speakers. Have a listen to
> some Tannoy Reveals, which have fine eq adjustment built in, as well
> as a very adequate bass extension.
>
> But you don't eq a monitor chain to get the sound you like - you do it
> to get an accurate representation of what you have recorded. This is
> all a bit chicken and egg because unless you take your mix to some
> studio that is already monitoring well and set it up there, you have
> no way of knowing whether your mix or your monitoring is bad.
>
> The best way is to get hold of some recordings that are similar to
> what you are trying for and set up your monitoring system so they
> sound right. That way you know that if you make yours sound the same,
> they will be good.
>
> d
> --
> Pearce Consulting http :// www .pearce.uk,com
I'll checkout those Tannoy's
I've learned allot today, thanks!
Akbal
Re: Do monitor speakers always going to lack on bass?
"Don Pearce" <nospam@nospam,com > wrote in message
news:482ca31d.43697218@news.plus,net ...
> All speakers have the same amount of detail unless
> they are actually broken.
Glad to know that the Mission bookshelf speakers in my bedroom reveal just
as much detail as the Apogees in the living room.
Perhaps I should throw the Apogees in the garbage and replace them with
Missions. Or anything else.
"Don Pearce" <nospam@nospam,com > wrote in message
news:482ca31d.43697218@news.plus,net ...
> All speakers have the same amount of detail unless
> they are actually broken.
Glad to know that the Mission bookshelf speakers in my bedroom reveal just
as much detail as the Apogees in the living room.
Perhaps I should throw the Apogees in the garbage and replace them with
Missions. Or anything else.
Re: Do monitor speakers always going to lack on bass?
William Sommerwerck wrote:
> "Don Pearce" <nospam@nospam,com > wrote in message
> news:482ca31d.43697218@news.plus,net ...
>
>> All speakers have the same amount of detail unless
>> they are actually broken.
>
> Glad to know that the Mission bookshelf speakers in my bedroom reveal just
> as much detail as the Apogees in the living room.
>
> Perhaps I should throw the Apogees in the garbage and replace them with
> Missions. Or anything else.
>
>
I didn't say they were as good - merely that they have the same detail.
How could it be otherwise? Or do you think that the cone simply chooses
not to move in response to some bits of the signal?
d
William Sommerwerck wrote:
> "Don Pearce" <nospam@nospam,com > wrote in message
> news:482ca31d.43697218@news.plus,net ...
>
>> All speakers have the same amount of detail unless
>> they are actually broken.
>
> Glad to know that the Mission bookshelf speakers in my bedroom reveal just
> as much detail as the Apogees in the living room.
>
> Perhaps I should throw the Apogees in the garbage and replace them with
> Missions. Or anything else.
>
>
I didn't say they were as good - merely that they have the same detail.
How could it be otherwise? Or do you think that the cone simply chooses
not to move in response to some bits of the signal?
d
Re: Do monitor speakers always going to lack on bass?
"Don Pearce" <nospam@nospam,com > wrote in message
news:cqGdnV2onK7SgbDVnZ2dnUVZ8vidnZ2d@posted.plusnet...
> William Sommerwerck wrote:
> > "Don Pearce" <nospam@nospam,com > wrote in message
> > news:482ca31d.43697218@news.plus,net ...
>>> All speakers have the same amount of detail unless
>>> they are actually broken.
>> Glad to know that the Mission bookshelf speakers in my bedroom reveal
just
>> as much detail as the Apogees in the living room.
>> Perhaps I should throw the Apogees in the garbage and replace them with
>> Missions. Or anything else.
> I didn't say they were as good - merely that they have the same detail.
> How could it be otherwise? Or do you think that the cone simply chooses
> not to move in response to some bits of the signal?
I'd suggest that you listen to some good modest speakers, and some good
"great" speakers, and decide for yourself which reveals more of the detail
in the recording.
"Don Pearce" <nospam@nospam,com > wrote in message
news:cqGdnV2onK7SgbDVnZ2dnUVZ8vidnZ2d@posted.plusnet...
> William Sommerwerck wrote:
> > "Don Pearce" <nospam@nospam,com > wrote in message
> > news:482ca31d.43697218@news.plus,net ...
>>> All speakers have the same amount of detail unless
>>> they are actually broken.
>> Glad to know that the Mission bookshelf speakers in my bedroom reveal
just
>> as much detail as the Apogees in the living room.
>> Perhaps I should throw the Apogees in the garbage and replace them with
>> Missions. Or anything else.
> I didn't say they were as good - merely that they have the same detail.
> How could it be otherwise? Or do you think that the cone simply chooses
> not to move in response to some bits of the signal?
I'd suggest that you listen to some good modest speakers, and some good
"great" speakers, and decide for yourself which reveals more of the detail
in the recording.
Re: Do monitor speakers always going to lack on bass?
Don Pearce <nospam@nospam,com > wrote:
>
>I didn't say they were as good - merely that they have the same detail.
>How could it be otherwise? Or do you think that the cone simply chooses
>not to move in response to some bits of the signal?
Absolutely. Put 18 KC into an 8" full range driver, and the cone will
simply choose not to move in response to the signal.
You can make any speaker sound more detailed by adding an artificial presence
peak. This is usually a very bad idea, and you very quickly get to the
point where things are more detailed than real.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Don Pearce <nospam@nospam,com > wrote:
>
>I didn't say they were as good - merely that they have the same detail.
>How could it be otherwise? Or do you think that the cone simply chooses
>not to move in response to some bits of the signal?
Absolutely. Put 18 KC into an 8" full range driver, and the cone will
simply choose not to move in response to the signal.
You can make any speaker sound more detailed by adding an artificial presence
peak. This is usually a very bad idea, and you very quickly get to the
point where things are more detailed than real.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Re: Do monitor speakers always going to lack on bass?
"Scott Dorsey" <kludge@panix,com > wrote in message
news:g0k0ln$9ak$1@panix2.panix,com
> Don Pearce <nospam@nospam,com > wrote:
>>
>> I didn't say they were as good - merely that they have
>> the same detail. How could it be otherwise? Or do you
>> think that the cone simply chooses not to move in
>> response to some bits of the signal?
>
> Absolutely. Put 18 KC into an 8" full range driver, and
> the cone will simply choose not to move in response to
> the signal.
Ironically, the specific example is poorly chosen.
It might be correct to say that the entire cone won't move, but then cones
don't move as pistons above amazingly low frequencies like a few 100 Hz.
If you measure right on axis, a lot of speakers will have response out to
even 20 kHz. The first thing to go away is dispersion. The lack of
dispersion can make a speaker sound like it lacks response.
> You can make any speaker sound more detailed by adding an
> artificial presence peak.
Since they can easily be pathological, and interact with the room, etc -
lets step away from speakers in this discusison of the effects of boosting
and cutting frequency ranges, and instead use a parametric equalizer.
If you add a presence peak you may create the sense of greater detail in the
range where the peak is, but only to a degree. Add more response, and the
perception of detail will actually go away.
If I want to add the perception of detail in a smooth-wide range system, I
add an upward tilt, and balance it with tilted-up bass. Eventually you get
a hole in the midrange which reduces over-all detail.
If you want to hear maximum detail, get your average listening level around
85 dB but not much more, and listen in a fairly dry room.
> This is usually a very bad
> idea, and you very quickly get to the point where things
> are more detailed than real.
Or, you just get an unbalanced sound.
"Scott Dorsey" <kludge@panix,com > wrote in message
news:g0k0ln$9ak$1@panix2.panix,com
> Don Pearce <nospam@nospam,com > wrote:
>>
>> I didn't say they were as good - merely that they have
>> the same detail. How could it be otherwise? Or do you
>> think that the cone simply chooses not to move in
>> response to some bits of the signal?
>
> Absolutely. Put 18 KC into an 8" full range driver, and
> the cone will simply choose not to move in response to
> the signal.
Ironically, the specific example is poorly chosen.
It might be correct to say that the entire cone won't move, but then cones
don't move as pistons above amazingly low frequencies like a few 100 Hz.
If you measure right on axis, a lot of speakers will have response out to
even 20 kHz. The first thing to go away is dispersion. The lack of
dispersion can make a speaker sound like it lacks response.
> You can make any speaker sound more detailed by adding an
> artificial presence peak.
Since they can easily be pathological, and interact with the room, etc -
lets step away from speakers in this discusison of the effects of boosting
and cutting frequency ranges, and instead use a parametric equalizer.
If you add a presence peak you may create the sense of greater detail in the
range where the peak is, but only to a degree. Add more response, and the
perception of detail will actually go away.
If I want to add the perception of detail in a smooth-wide range system, I
add an upward tilt, and balance it with tilted-up bass. Eventually you get
a hole in the midrange which reduces over-all detail.
If you want to hear maximum detail, get your average listening level around
85 dB but not much more, and listen in a fairly dry room.
> This is usually a very bad
> idea, and you very quickly get to the point where things
> are more detailed than real.
Or, you just get an unbalanced sound.
Re: Do monitor speakers always going to lack on bass?
Scott Dorsey wrote:
> Don Pearce <nospam@nospam,com > wrote:
>> I didn't say they were as good - merely that they have the same detail.
>> How could it be otherwise? Or do you think that the cone simply chooses
>> not to move in response to some bits of the signal?
>
> Absolutely. Put 18 KC into an 8" full range driver, and the cone will
> simply choose not to move in response to the signal.
>
That isn't what I'm saying. I am starting by assuming a similar basic
frequency response so we can assume competence. And detail isn't a
signal at 18kHz, detail is the low-level stuff at any frequency.
> You can make any speaker sound more detailed by adding an artificial presence
> peak. This is usually a very bad idea, and you very quickly get to the
> point where things are more detailed than real.
> --scott
You can make a speaker sound more detailed by putting a hump at any
frequency. You will hear low level detail in that band that is normally
obscured in a flat speaker. So to talk of a speaker reproducing or not
reproducing detail is nonsense. They all reproduce all of it. It is just
that if the frequency response isn't flat you will hear some details
that you couldn't hear in other speakers.
A few months back I recorded a bass guitar through a DI. I got about a
minute while it was standing against a chair. Listening to it I could
barely make out something odd in the background, so I did some forensic
editing. I notched out the hum, did a noise reduction on the remaining
grunge and enhanced the mid frequencies. Result - a clearly audible
conversation between two people in the room. So I got much more detail
after I had done that work, so it would have made a better bass
recording, right?...
Don't be fooled by this "detail" thing. It may mean better, or it may
mean worse.
d
Scott Dorsey wrote:
> Don Pearce <nospam@nospam,com > wrote:
>> I didn't say they were as good - merely that they have the same detail.
>> How could it be otherwise? Or do you think that the cone simply chooses
>> not to move in response to some bits of the signal?
>
> Absolutely. Put 18 KC into an 8" full range driver, and the cone will
> simply choose not to move in response to the signal.
>
That isn't what I'm saying. I am starting by assuming a similar basic
frequency response so we can assume competence. And detail isn't a
signal at 18kHz, detail is the low-level stuff at any frequency.
> You can make any speaker sound more detailed by adding an artificial presence
> peak. This is usually a very bad idea, and you very quickly get to the
> point where things are more detailed than real.
> --scott
You can make a speaker sound more detailed by putting a hump at any
frequency. You will hear low level detail in that band that is normally
obscured in a flat speaker. So to talk of a speaker reproducing or not
reproducing detail is nonsense. They all reproduce all of it. It is just
that if the frequency response isn't flat you will hear some details
that you couldn't hear in other speakers.
A few months back I recorded a bass guitar through a DI. I got about a
minute while it was standing against a chair. Listening to it I could
barely make out something odd in the background, so I did some forensic
editing. I notched out the hum, did a noise reduction on the remaining
grunge and enhanced the mid frequencies. Result - a clearly audible
conversation between two people in the room. So I got much more detail
after I had done that work, so it would have made a better bass
recording, right?...
Don't be fooled by this "detail" thing. It may mean better, or it may
mean worse.
d
Re: Do monitor speakers always going to lack on bass?
Don, you know better than that.
Don, you know better than that.
Re: Do monitor speakers always going to lack on bass?
On Thu, 15 May 2008 21:18:59 -0400, Agent 86
<maxwell-smart@control.gov> wrote:
>Don, you know better than that.
Than what? Better than to suggest that monitoring should be accurate?
d
--
Pearce Consulting
http :// www .pearce.uk,com
On Thu, 15 May 2008 21:18:59 -0400, Agent 86
<maxwell-smart@control.gov> wrote:
>Don, you know better than that.
Than what? Better than to suggest that monitoring should be accurate?
d
--
Pearce Consulting
http :// www .pearce.uk,com
Re: Do monitor speakers always going to lack on bass?
"Don Pearce" <nospam@nospam,com > wrote in message
news:482e24ca.76881234@news.plus,net ...
> On Thu, 15 May 2008 21:18:59 -0400, Agent 86
> <maxwell-smart@control.gov> wrote:
>> Don, you know better than that.
> Than what? Better than to suggest that monitoring should be accurate?
Truly accurate monitoring can produce recordings that don't sound the way
you intended on the equipment they're intended to be heard on.
If you're mixing and EQing multitrack session tapes, you need to hear them
on (roughly) the sort of equipment they'll be played on. You can't mix on
QUADs and expect the sound to be "right" for a $500 home-theater system.
"Don Pearce" <nospam@nospam,com > wrote in message
news:482e24ca.76881234@news.plus,net ...
> On Thu, 15 May 2008 21:18:59 -0400, Agent 86
> <maxwell-smart@control.gov> wrote:
>> Don, you know better than that.
> Than what? Better than to suggest that monitoring should be accurate?
Truly accurate monitoring can produce recordings that don't sound the way
you intended on the equipment they're intended to be heard on.
If you're mixing and EQing multitrack session tapes, you need to hear them
on (roughly) the sort of equipment they'll be played on. You can't mix on
QUADs and expect the sound to be "right" for a $500 home-theater system.
Re: Do monitor speakers always going to lack on bass?
William Sommerwerck wrote:
> "Don Pearce" <nospam@nospam,com > wrote in message
> news:482e24ca.76881234@news.plus,net ...
>> On Thu, 15 May 2008 21:18:59 -0400, Agent 86
>> <maxwell-smart@control.gov> wrote:
>
>>> Don, you know better than that.
>
>> Than what? Better than to suggest that monitoring should be accurate?
>
> Truly accurate monitoring can produce recordings that don't sound the way
> you intended on the equipment they're intended to be heard on.
>
> If you're mixing and EQing multitrack session tapes, you need to hear them
> on (roughly) the sort of equipment they'll be played on. You can't mix on
> QUADs and expect the sound to be "right" for a $500 home-theater system.
>
>
That is what accurate monitoring is. You create something that sounds
good out in the real world, not just in the control room, where you can
fool yourself with optimistic monitoring.
d
William Sommerwerck wrote:
> "Don Pearce" <nospam@nospam,com > wrote in message
> news:482e24ca.76881234@news.plus,net ...
>> On Thu, 15 May 2008 21:18:59 -0400, Agent 86
>> <maxwell-smart@control.gov> wrote:
>
>>> Don, you know better than that.
>
>> Than what? Better than to suggest that monitoring should be accurate?
>
> Truly accurate monitoring can produce recordings that don't sound the way
> you intended on the equipment they're intended to be heard on.
>
> If you're mixing and EQing multitrack session tapes, you need to hear them
> on (roughly) the sort of equipment they'll be played on. You can't mix on
> QUADs and expect the sound to be "right" for a $500 home-theater system.
>
>
That is what accurate monitoring is. You create something that sounds
good out in the real world, not just in the control room, where you can
fool yourself with optimistic monitoring.
d
Re: Do monitor speakers always going to lack on bass?
"Don Pearce" <nospam@nospam,com > wrote in message
news:VaudncxuFbFj77DVnZ2dnUVZ8uydnZ2d@posted.plusnet...
> William Sommerwerck wrote:
> > "Don Pearce" <nospam@nospam,com > wrote in message
> > news:482e24ca.76881234@news.plus,net ...
> >> On Thu, 15 May 2008 21:18:59 -0400, Agent 86
> >> <maxwell-smart@control.gov> wrote:
> >>> Don, you know better than that.
> >> Than what? Better than to suggest that monitoring should be accurate?
> > Truly accurate monitoring can produce recordings that don't sound the
way
> > you intended on the equipment they're intended to be heard on.
> > If you're mixing and EQing multitrack session tapes, you need to hear
them
> > on (roughly) the sort of equipment they'll be played on. You can't mix
on
> > QUADs and expect the sound to be "right" for a $500 home-theater system.
> That is what accurate monitoring is. You create something that sounds
> good out in the real world, not just in the control room, where you can
> fool yourself with optimistic monitoring.
I think you need to think this through.
If I were making simply or minimally miked recordings, I would monitor with
QUADs or Apogees or B&Ws or Martin-Logans. If I were making a multitracked
pop or rock album, these are absolutely the last speakers I would use for
monitoring.
"Don Pearce" <nospam@nospam,com > wrote in message
news:VaudncxuFbFj77DVnZ2dnUVZ8uydnZ2d@posted.plusnet...
> William Sommerwerck wrote:
> > "Don Pearce" <nospam@nospam,com > wrote in message
> > news:482e24ca.76881234@news.plus,net ...
> >> On Thu, 15 May 2008 21:18:59 -0400, Agent 86
> >> <maxwell-smart@control.gov> wrote:
> >>> Don, you know better than that.
> >> Than what? Better than to suggest that monitoring should be accurate?
> > Truly accurate monitoring can produce recordings that don't sound the
way
> > you intended on the equipment they're intended to be heard on.
> > If you're mixing and EQing multitrack session tapes, you need to hear
them
> > on (roughly) the sort of equipment they'll be played on. You can't mix
on
> > QUADs and expect the sound to be "right" for a $500 home-theater system.
> That is what accurate monitoring is. You create something that sounds
> good out in the real world, not just in the control room, where you can
> fool yourself with optimistic monitoring.
I think you need to think this through.
If I were making simply or minimally miked recordings, I would monitor with
QUADs or Apogees or B&Ws or Martin-Logans. If I were making a multitracked
pop or rock album, these are absolutely the last speakers I would use for
monitoring.
Re: Do monitor speakers always going to lack on bass?
William Sommerwerck wrote:
> "Don Pearce" <nospam@nospam,com > wrote in message
> news:VaudncxuFbFj77DVnZ2dnUVZ8uydnZ2d@posted.plusnet...
>> William Sommerwerck wrote:
>>> "Don Pearce" <nospam@nospam,com > wrote in message
>>> news:482e24ca.76881234@news.plus,net ...
>>>> On Thu, 15 May 2008 21:18:59 -0400, Agent 86
>>>> <maxwell-smart@control.gov> wrote:
>
>>>>> Don, you know better than that.
>
>>>> Than what? Better than to suggest that monitoring should be accurate?
>>> Truly accurate monitoring can produce recordings that don't sound the
> way
>>> you intended on the equipment they're intended to be heard on.
>
>>> If you're mixing and EQing multitrack session tapes, you need to hear
> them
>>> on (roughly) the sort of equipment they'll be played on. You can't mix
> on
>>> QUADs and expect the sound to be "right" for a $500 home-theater system.
>
>> That is what accurate monitoring is. You create something that sounds
>> good out in the real world, not just in the control room, where you can
>> fool yourself with optimistic monitoring.
>
> I think you need to think this through.
>
> If I were making simply or minimally miked recordings, I would monitor with
> QUADs or Apogees or B&Ws or Martin-Logans. If I were making a multitracked
> pop or rock album, these are absolutely the last speakers I would use for
> monitoring.
>
>
That's right. As I said, it has to sound good in the real world. For
different types of music, the real world can mean different things.
Horses for courses.
At the bottom of all this is me saying don't make a good sounding
monitoring chain, it won't result in a good mix.
d
William Sommerwerck wrote:
> "Don Pearce" <nospam@nospam,com > wrote in message
> news:VaudncxuFbFj77DVnZ2dnUVZ8uydnZ2d@posted.plusnet...
>> William Sommerwerck wrote:
>>> "Don Pearce" <nospam@nospam,com > wrote in message
>>> news:482e24ca.76881234@news.plus,net ...
>>>> On Thu, 15 May 2008 21:18:59 -0400, Agent 86
>>>> <maxwell-smart@control.gov> wrote:
>
>>>>> Don, you know better than that.
>
>>>> Than what? Better than to suggest that monitoring should be accurate?
>>> Truly accurate monitoring can produce recordings that don't sound the
> way
>>> you intended on the equipment they're intended to be heard on.
>
>>> If you're mixing and EQing multitrack session tapes, you need to hear
> them
>>> on (roughly) the sort of equipment they'll be played on. You can't mix
> on
>>> QUADs and expect the sound to be "right" for a $500 home-theater system.
>
>> That is what accurate monitoring is. You create something that sounds
>> good out in the real world, not just in the control room, where you can
>> fool yourself with optimistic monitoring.
>
> I think you need to think this through.
>
> If I were making simply or minimally miked recordings, I would monitor with
> QUADs or Apogees or B&Ws or Martin-Logans. If I were making a multitracked
> pop or rock album, these are absolutely the last speakers I would use for
> monitoring.
>
>
That's right. As I said, it has to sound good in the real world. For
different types of music, the real world can mean different things.
Horses for courses.
At the bottom of all this is me saying don't make a good sounding
monitoring chain, it won't result in a good mix.
d
Next: Making a short XLR cable
Previous: CHINA WHOLESALE Omega WATCHES,T-SHIRT,glasses,,jeans ,bags AND MORE BRAND GOODS...
