# Mixing with Headphone vs Mixing with Studio Monitors



## constaneum (Aug 3, 2015)

I used to begin composition with headphone but ever since the ear discomfort I gained from using headphone, i've moved away from headphone and invested on Studio Monitors. I've been working on my music with studio monitors for years now. I was told recently that mixing with headphone is better than studio monitors as you can hear the details much clearer when mixing. What's your opinions on this?

If that's true, there's something which i'll like to clarify before deciding on whether to use back headphone for purely mixing but not throughout the composition process. I'll like to know what's the difference between mixing with headphone and mixing with studio monitors? Let's say after i've done my mixing and it sounded good on my headphone. However, when the mixed music is being played from the studio monitor, the result might not be that good or sound different/horrible. Does anyone encounter this problem? Just curious.


----------



## garyhiebner (Aug 3, 2015)

I wouldn't say better is the world. Both have their benefits. You can pick up more detail with headphones. But you definitely need to check your mix on monitors as mixing on headphones can give a different impression on how you've placed your sounds in the stereo field. If you do plan on mixing with headphones take a look at this post for some headphone recommendations http://vi-control.net/community/threads/the-ultimate-headphone-thread-headphoneamps-added.35400/


----------



## Allegro (Aug 3, 2015)

Mixing with monitors is like viewing a painting from a distance where everything is in your field of view. You get a good sense of the overall (track wise) soundstage, compression, eq etc. Because of the sound hitting your whole body, you can feel something tangible going on even at higher frequencies that aren't even felt in the typical sense. Room correction is an issue though. Some details remain hidden.

Mixing with headphones is like viewing the same painting but this time under a microscope. You'll find flaws in the original mixes, recordings etc that you won't be able to find that easily using monitors. Because of the sound hitting your ears so directly (Lesser so with open back or higher end phones though), the overall feel of the track gets a little lost somehow but the resolution you get in return is great. Imaging is a bit exaggerated because of no crossfeed but this is a separate debate. Also, applying reverb and phase checking gets a bit tricky. The biggest things to consider are the low subby frequencies that we can't hear but feel. This is where checking your mix with monitors can be good imo.

With extreme top end monitors and phones though, things are a bit different.
My 0.02$


----------



## dsmo (Aug 4, 2015)

While it's true that headphones provide more detail, they are also an unnatural way to hear sound. not how the real world works. your ears were not designed to be used with headphones. I believe they cause damage. Obviously so when used too loudly; but also more subtly even with normal volumes over time. Ringing in the ears is one symptom.


----------



## kunst91 (Aug 4, 2015)

I've been forced to use headphones lately do to living circumstances, and even though I'm using a decent pair (Sennheiser HD600), when I come into the studio and listen to a track through monitors a little piece of my soul dies. Although that could just be a lack of mixing chops on my part


----------



## chimuelo (Aug 4, 2015)

FWIW IEMs have saved my ears from loud stage monitors.
Also notice on regular phones my headphone needs twice the output as custom silicon.


----------



## jacobthestupendous (Aug 4, 2015)

Allegro said:


> the overall feel of the track gets a little lost somehow but the resolution you get in return is great.


I'm a noob, but this has been my experience exactly. 

My house doesn't have a decent place for a studio, so I’m doing all my noob hobbyist composing on my laptop atop my piano in our (not acoustically treated) dining room. I have some monitors that see little use because I mostly work after bedtime. I mostly work through Beyerdynamic DT-880 Pros plugged into my Apollo Twin and I am continually amazed by their definition and the soundstage they create, but for mixing, I haven’t been able to use them very effectively yet. Admittedly I’m still learning, but when I make broad changes, often I can hear that _something _is different, but I can’t say quite how because everything is so distinct; I lose the forest because the trees are in such amazing focus. My workaround so far has been to plug in a pair of crappy earbuds (that came with my Samsung Galaxy Note 2) and temporarily route the audio output through the computer’s headphone jack. This gives me a broad view that more closely approximates the outputs on all of my other crappy listening sources (car, work headphones, etc.). I usually do this after taking a pass at things with the Beyerdynamics.


----------



## Tanuj Tiku (Aug 6, 2015)

I am forced to use headphones a lot in many circumstances. In untreated rooms, the sound from the speakers is a huge problem. The most obvious is the imaging and bass. You can never be sure what you are doing is going to work or not.

So, in such a case headphones are a good option.

But there are other problems that arise from long term use of headphones. Tinnitus, ear infections, blockage of ears etc.

You must remember to clean your headphones and take frequent breaks. It does cause more fatigue than working on speakers. In my experience, open headphones are better than closed ones for long term use.

There is also another downside. There is no cross-talk between the left and right channels. This is very different in speakers of course.

Clarity is great when compared to listening in untreated rooms but in a high quality studio, it will be extremely clear as well. Provided the room is well designed and you have full range speakers.

Ultimately, I would say that working on speakers is better even in slightly compromised studios or listening via less ideal speakers.

You do get used to the response of your room. But it is extremely difficult to work in untreated rooms or rooms with bad treatment if you must deliver production music or mixes etc.


----------



## maxime77 (Aug 7, 2015)

Why would you choose between Monitors & Headphones? Just use both, start by mixing with Studio Monitors & then check the details with your headphones to make sure nothing is wrong (such as Reverb). A mix done with Studio Monitors will most of the time sound good in Headphones, but the contrary is not so true, or let's say it's less probable. Here is a nice blog where you can find some information about it: http://therecordingrevolution.com/2014/03/07/should-you-mix-on-headphones-or-monitors/


----------



## Vin (Aug 7, 2015)

You should use both.

It's perfectly possible to achieve great-sounding mixes on headphones, especially if you work in untreated room, in which case is better to work on headphones most of the time and then check your mix on monitors.

The key is using reference tracks (great mixes that you know well). Also, it's harder to get the bass right on headphones, so use a solid spectrum analyzer (like Voxengo SPAN) on your master bus to see what you can hear precisely.

Regarding translation to other systems, the single best piece of advice that I got is to mix in mono - it improved my mixes dramatically. If you get it right in mono, it will sound good anywhere.

http://audioundone.com/headphones-and-mixing

http://therecordingrevolution.com/2...ou-could-spend-to-instantly-get-better-mixes/


----------



## tomaslobosk (Aug 7, 2015)

Tanuj Tiku said:


> There is also another downside. There is no cross-talk between the left and right channels. This is very different in speakers of course.


Exactly.
When using headphones, sound from left and right channels do not cross-talk, so it's important to check phase correlation between L and R: summing them and listen your mix in mono.



mdiemer said:


> While it's true that headphones provide more detail, they are also an unnatural way to hear sound



IMHO, it depends of how you mix your audio. If your audio is supposed to be heard with speakers, yeah, you must mix it with speakers. But headphones are an amazing experience when using holophonics, specially when most of the people nowadays uses smartphones with headphones to listen to their music.


----------



## dannymc (Aug 16, 2015)

i just received my new set of Sennheiser HD600's. had a listen to my latest composition through them and it sounded bloody awful. is this normal? should i aim to get the mix sounding good in the hd600's and this will translate to a better overall mix? i had been mixing using a set of closed HD280 pros and everything sounded full and clean in these so i was shocked to hear the difference. would the HD600's be a better representation of how my track actually sounds in reality or should i use a combination of reference sound sources including the HD280 pro's to finish the mix? monitors are not an option for me at this moment.


----------



## maxime77 (Aug 16, 2015)

It usually happens when someone changes his headphones, you just need to get use to the sound, use them for a few days more & it should be good. It would have been great to check your composition through studio monitors to see if anything was wrong, but open headphones are those which are the closest to what you hear through studio monitors.


----------



## davidgary73 (Aug 16, 2015)

dannymc said:


> i just received my new set of Sennheiser HD600's. had a listen to my latest composition through them and it sounded bloody awful. is this normal? should i aim to get the mix sounding good in the hd600's and this will translate to a better overall mix? i had been mixing using a set of closed HD280 pros and everything sounded full and clean in these so i was shocked to hear the difference. would the HD600's be a better representation of how my track actually sounds in reality or should i use a combination of reference sound sources including the HD280 pro's to finish the mix? monitors are not an option for me at this moment.



A very common thing we do as soon as we acquire a new headphone is to have "burn in" time. Meaning we prep various types of music and play it for 100 hrs + with the headphone at a moderate volume. I just set the iPod and let it play non stop. By 5 days + or more, the signature sound will slowly emerge.


----------



## maxime77 (Aug 16, 2015)

davidgary73 said:


> A very common thing we do as soon as we acquire a new headphone is to have "burn in" time. Meaning we prep various types of music and play it for 100 hrs + with the headphone at a moderate volume. I just set the iPod and let it play non stop. By 5 days + or more, the signature sound will slowly emerge.



Concerning the "burn-in" method, I really don't think it is necessary. Instead of playing a sound for ~50 hours or more through your headphones, you should consider using them instead. By doing so, it will do the exact same thing as the "burn-in" method over time, and you'll learn to appreciate the sound of the headphones naturally.



> Headphones do not require ‘burning’ in, however over a period of time the sound of headphones naturally change by a very small margin.
> 
> To make these slight changes happen sooner you can play music through your headphones for 50+ hours at normal listening levels. This ‘burning in’ process can have the following effects:
> 
> ...


----------



## KEnK (Aug 16, 2015)

Vin said:


> Regarding translation to other systems, the single best piece of advice that I got is to mix in mono - it improved my mixes dramatically. If you get it right in mono, it will sound good anywhere.


Just saw this now.
I've been reading about this (also LCR mixing) but haven't tried either.
So after you get a good mono mix, do you then start to pan things?
Do you always do this?

thanks

k


----------



## davidgary73 (Aug 16, 2015)

maxime77 said:


> Concerning the "burn-in" method, I really don't think it is necessary. Instead of playing a sound for ~50 hours or more through your headphones, you should consider using them instead. By doing so, it will do the exact same thing as the "burn-in" method over time, and you'll learn to appreciate the sound of the headphones naturally.



Sure. We can opt to burn-in listening to it everyday too 

What i did with my Sony MDR 7506 was to allow it to burn-in with music 24/7 and within 5 days or so, my headphones are ready for work.

Prefer not to sit down with new headphones for 3-4 hrs a day and try to work with it when its not seasoned and in calculation, 50 hrs of burn-in time with 4 hrs of a daily usage, it will take 15 days. 100 hrs burn-in time with take 25 days.

I read somewhere that some even took 250 hrs for headphones to acquire its signature sound.

So i choose to a faster route and my headphone are ready with smooth frequency extension in the bass and treble, better instrument separation with a good open sound stage.

I plan to purchase a HD 600 too and will surely choose a faster route to burn-in.

Cheers


----------



## KEnK (Aug 17, 2015)

I never heard of this "burn in" thing regarding headphones.
Maybe I'll like my DT770's more if I try this.
I hardly ever use them.

k


----------



## waveheavy (Aug 21, 2015)

KEnK said:


> Just saw this now.
> I've been reading about this (also LCR mixing) but haven't tried either.
> So after you get a good mono mix, do you then start to pan things?
> Do you always do this?
> ...



With practice, getting balances is easier listening in mono. (See my "How to mix" thread).

Panning while in mono is useful when you're trying to find a spot for an instrument that you've applied EQ and comp on already but is still buried in the mix. Monitoring in mono you'll hear that instrument suddenly pop out when you find it a good pan spot.

Mono also reveals phase issues between tracks. You'll hear something out of phase drop out (get weak) suddenly, or sometimes, completely disappear.

Mixing EDM music for club, if the mix is too stereo, the club mix will be bad. So mono listening can help with revealing that problem.

The order I use is 1. static mix (panning and volume balances only, in stereo monitoring), 2. phase corrections (stereo and mono listening), 3. EQ and compression (in mono). 4. Reverb and effects (in stereo). 5. Automation (in stereo).


----------



## waveheavy (Aug 21, 2015)

I know some mixers who can do productions on just headphones. But they've had a lot... of experience with and without them. Focal has a new headphone that makes it more possible.

One of the biggest problems with headphones only (other than problems others listed above), is it's almost impossible to tell how much reverb you're applying (even with the new Focal headphones it's still a problem).

But don't forget the "car check", boom box, ear buds, and mono speaker checks. 

I'm wary about bringing this up, but here goes. A set of monitors many professionals swear by are the Yamaha NS-10s. As far as sound goes, they sound crappy. They're heavy in the mid range, and the bass cuts off above 40Hz. If you've watched Dave Pensado's videos, those are the little speakers with white cones he used to have sitting on top of silver looking coffee cans.

The reason why they like the NS-10s is because they agree (most of them I've talked to anyway), that if... you can get a good sounding mix on those, then it will translate to everything else.

But they use them proportionately, like the starting mix stage, and then check the mix on full range monitors and other systems and make corrections if needed. 

I'll warn anyone thinking about getting a pair of NS-10s. They're not made anymore, so they're like a 'vintage' item, expensive, especially since they became part of a major studio market years ago. And they weren't meant to be driven hard, they were originally created as bookshelf speakers for the home market. They're difficult to use, because they make you really work to get a good sound on them. 

But... in the mix engineer world, a great sounding monitor is not necessarily beneficial. You want a monitor that reveals the audio accurately, without any coloring (which is why monitoring on consumer speakers is not really a good thing, because they do 'color' the sound). The NS-10s force you to deal with the mid range of the mix, which indeed is one of the most important areas to deal with, since just about every instrument has a frequency build in that area.


----------



## wolf (Aug 21, 2015)

"mixing with headphone is better than studio monitors as you can hear the details much clearer when mixing" On one hand, this is true. But it's not the whole story. Mixing isn't only about hearing the details. To me it's much more about how things work together to form the whole soundscape. It's hard to give a general recommendation because one can always find opposite situations, however for me, details are important during production work or when fixing stuff. That overlaps with mixing to some degree, but the main part of mixing is the bigger picture.

Like others pointed out, the lack of speaker cross talk in headphones is a big issue. It also leads to or hastens ear fatigue because the sound appears to be inside your head. I use a plugin that simulates the cross talk - makes a huge difference. My favorite currently is Redline Monitor from 112db. (I'm not affiliated with them) There are others out there. Try them out and feel the difference. it revolutionized my headphone experience.

As for mixing in mono: I use it as a technique to check my mixes for possible phase issues and/or build up in the (lower) mid range. It can also be useful to check levels - sometimes an instrument that is too loud becomes really obvious when switching to mono. Other than that I don't use it much. I'm not mixing for mono listening (but I try to make sure the mix still works in mono). one trick: if you can, don't just switch your speakers to mono. Set your output signal to mono and send it to only one speaker (I have a speaker switch box that can do that trick) - makes things even more obvious.

LCR mixing: I don't like it. too unnatural for me. feels weird to me to have all this empty space between the extreme positions (yes, I know that reverbs, delays... somewhat fill that space; still...) and typically lots of stuff crammed into the middle (bass, drums, vocals, some pads). Maybe an interesting option for pop, dance... mixes. not for what I mostly do (games, orchestral, acoustic stuff, not even for Rock).

my recommendation: use both speakers and headphones. And get a cross talk simulator for the headphones. Use mono for checking your mixes and don't bother with LCR mixing.


----------



## Udo (Aug 22, 2015)

There are several solutions to handle the real or perceived disadvantages of mixing on headphones (but you'll have to learn to use them), e.g:

- Jeroen Breebaart's Isone Pro VST plugin - he uses the Toneboosters brand name now - www.toneboosters.com He has a substantial pro background & experience in this area - holds many patents (incl. collaborations). Check his bio and patents etc here - www.jeroenbreebaart.com

- Focusrite VRM Box (includes emulations of various speakers)

- For a lot of money SPL Phonitor - various models.
.


----------



## rayinstirling (Aug 23, 2015)

Unless you've trained your ears to know what's good against what isn't, followed by the ability to know what to do about the latter, the debate is pretty irrelevant.

Those that can will adapt even when not suited.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Aug 23, 2015)

TomiLobosK is right. Headphones don't give you the interaural cues you get from speakers, and the "perfect" imaging on headphones can fool you. You can't lock in the stereo image nearly as precisely on speakers, because it shifts as soon as you move your head a fraction of an inch. And you can hear everything on headphones, while you have to work to make everything heard on speakers.

Headphones are not damaging to your ears unless you turn them up too high.

Too many of the usual comments about "untreated" rooms. The issue is *bad* rooms. Treating a room is only useful for solving specific problems, and most of the time that doesn't require acoustic products. Worse, you can create problems more easily than you can solve them by sticking up products arbitrarily - or still worse, by following the conventional wisdom about muffling side reflections!


----------



## Priscilla Hernandez (Aug 23, 2015)

I get easily tired when mixing with headphones and usually perceive the track so differently when listening the track in the monitors. I think I use both, I mostly mix with headphones but I always listen to it with the monitors fresh-eared the following day to see some unexpected high or low tracks. I don't know why this happen but the feeling of volume in the tracks differ (guess in my case due to my studio monitors that need to be replaced). I usually then listen to the track in different media and take notes of the impressions (this sounds to loud or too low) and get back to the first state. I have big "ears" so headphones make me physically hurt a lot. I want to get some yamaha ns10 though I've been told (by a pro) that there are much cheaper though "imitation" monitors like the audiospares sn10 that does the job nicely for a fraction the price, wonder if some of you have these though and could forward opinions


----------



## Udo (Aug 24, 2015)

Nick Batzdorf said:


> TomiLobosK is right. Headphones don't give you the interaural cues .....



As I said earlier, you can get interaural cues on headphones using the tools I mentioned above.

What's more, it's even possible to monitor SURROUND MIXES on headphones using the Lake Technologies HSM-6240 Headphone Surround Monitor (and similar technologies).

I still have one of those.


----------



## rayinstirling (Aug 24, 2015)

for anyone given the choice of monitor speakers or phones (some may not have the room or deaf family and/or neighbors) PICK MONITORS.
yes I'm shouting.
Good mixes on speakers will translate to other means or places for playback. No contest!
Arguing against this fact is putting your right foot forward while others universally accepted as being great at this job (do we need to make a list?) use their left.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Aug 24, 2015)

Udo, the effect of the room itself is still missing, even if you can simulate some of it.

I haven't heard those tools, however.


----------



## KingIdiot (Aug 24, 2015)

what year is this?

Anywho. Room response and air is important. Models of speakers and convolution wont give you the same effect. It's still static. It will help give variation and possibly (if you have learned what they do, and know what you're doing, and learn from experience) give you variations... but not a replacement.

that said... if you know what you're doing you can do a lot in terms of headphone mixing and visual mixing via spectragraphic views that might help you... if you know what you're doing and learn from experience... wait.. this disclaimer comes up a lot

cans arent a replacement. speakers aren't always perfect and have their own drawbacks.

it's almost like there's no perfect way, and that's why they've been using both for ...the whole of existence of multitrack recording and mixing...


----------



## Udo (Aug 24, 2015)

rayinstirling said:


> for anyone given the choice of monitor speakers or phones (some may not have the room or deaf family and/or neighbors) PICK MONITORS.
> yes I'm shouting.
> Good mixes on speakers will translate to other means or places for playback. No contest!
> Arguing against this fact is putting your right foot forward while others universally accepted as being great at this job (do we need to make a list?) use their left.



I totally agree, provided the room is properly treated!
EDIT: Should have mentioned that in my 1st post, when mentioning headphone alternatives!

Unless the room is PROPERLY treated, you may well get better results using headphones with the tools I mentioned. That's the reason I mentioned the alternatives.

BTW, for rooms that have had SOME treatment, IK Multimedia's ARC 2 is a useful tool -www.soundonsound.com/sos/oct13/articles/arc2.htm


----------



## dannymc (Aug 24, 2015)

but does an untreated room really negate the value of good monitors to that extent that you are better with studio monitors instead? would it not just be better to use better sitting position i.e. very close to the speakers as to not make the room treatment that much of an issue?


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Aug 24, 2015)

Danny, it doesn't work that way.

The conventional wisdom you're quoting is that you want to eliminate the room; all it does is interfere with the best sound, which is directly from the speakers. It makes intuitive sense, but it's wrong.

If that were the case we'd mix outdoors, or in an anechoic chamber.

You really need the room to enhance the speakers themselves, just like with an instrument. There's no difference!

It's more complicated, but that's also why the old wives' tale about absorbing reflections from the side (because they comb filter with the "direct sound from the speakers") is complete and utter nonsense.

Also, I want to repeat my caution against equating "good room" and "treated room." The two are not the same thing!

***
We've had the argument here before about whether it's more important to "treat your room" or get good monitors. Well, I say that's a false choice. You want good monitors *and* you want a good room.

But I'd much rather have good monitors in a listenable room than lousy monitors in a good room. The reason is that your brain compensates for room problems, but speakers can't do that.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Aug 24, 2015)

Udo, I have some disagreements with what you're saying, although the ARC is interesting (I've played with the original one, not v.2).

But it really depends on what you mean by properly treated. For monitoring/mixing, you can almost always make a room perfectly listenable just by sticking up a bunch of broadband absorption at the front of the room. That soaks up excess reverb and traps the bass, even if it doesn't deal with architectural issues - i.e. the room ratio itself.

People screw up rooms' frequency response with absorption at the side.


----------



## Udo (Aug 24, 2015)

Nick Batzdorf said:


> Udo, I have some disagreements with what you're saying, although the ARC is interesting (I've played with the original one, not v.2).
> 
> But it really depends on what you mean by properly treated. For monitoring/mixing, you can almost always make a room perfectly listenable just by sticking up a bunch of broadband absorption at the front of the room. That soaks up excess reverb and traps the bass, even if it doesn't deal with architectural issues - i.e. the room ratio itself.
> 
> People screw up rooms' frequency response with absorption at the side.



Nick, your last sentence says what I was getting at, although I should have said: "Suitably treated". I also think that many people here just have a "home studio" which may come with additional complications, such as awkward room shape.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Aug 24, 2015)

Coolio.


----------



## Udo (Aug 25, 2015)

Forgot to mention: Experiment with the position of headphones on your head (in relation to your ears).


----------



## 1982m (Aug 26, 2015)

For mixing with phones & RC try this software.
http://sonarworks.com/

For myself monitors & proper room treatment are a must.


----------



## Udo (Aug 26, 2015)

1982m said:


> For mixing with phones & RC try this software.
> http://sonarworks.com/
> ....


Yes, I know that one.

www.noisebud.se also has some useful plug-ins, e.g. *Listen* (which has their Evouyn and Fletchy-Muncher built in).


----------

