# Bob katz: nearfield monitoring is like wearing big headphones!



## gsilbers (Jan 22, 2011)

I am currious why nearfields cant or shouldnt be used for mastering. Could they be used outside of the nearfield positioning?

Nearfields were originally proposed as a way to deal with large consoles which get in the way of stand-mounted loudspeakers. But as large consoles are disappearing, this justification goes away. Project studios often put nearfields on tables, which cause serious acoustical anomalies such as resonances and comb filtering. Nearfields have often been cited as helping to reduce acoustical problems of bad rooms, but all the other problems they introduce hardly justify their use.

One problem is that nearfield monitoring is like wearing big headphones! The stereo imaging is so wide that it discourages you from making a "big" master that will translate to home systems. The second problem is that the high frequency response of speakers that are to be used as nearfields has to be tailored for such close use, so they won't bite your ear, so not just any speaker can be used as a nearfield. The third problem is that very few of the speakers designed as nearfields have adequate dynamics and low frequency extension (with some exceptions, I've seen engineers use Meyer HD-1s as nearfields, but these can sound overbright when used this close). The fourth problem is that nearfield monitoring exagerrates transients and affects your perception of the relationship of lead and solo versus rhythm. The fifth problem is that nearfield position exagerrates ambience, creating a higher ratio of direct to room sound. So nearfields are not particularly good for anything, *either mixing or mastering!*

Mixes and masters made on nearfields will have a great deal of trouble translating to other systems. I don't recommend nearfield monitoring for any purpose except in remote truck control rooms with extremely limited space, where they are usually not used for mixing, but to verify that the recording (tracking) is going well.

To answer your question whether speakers designed to be used as nearfields can be used as mid- or farfield speakers, I doubt it. Most speakers which people are using as nearfields have so little headroom or extension that they will sound even worse when placed in the mid or far field! But there are some exceptions, and I find a pair of Genelec 8040s or 8240s make good midfields if not played too loudly.


----------



## germancomponist (Jan 22, 2011)

Listen to the bass management in so many pieces and you will hear that it is true what Bob says. 
One can only mix what one can hear, and here in the lower and low frequencies the little monitors mostly suck... .


----------



## EnTaroAdun (Jan 22, 2011)

gsilbers @ 2011-01-22 said:


> The stereo imaging is so wide that it discourages you from making a "big" master that will translate to home systems.


It's not that wide with the proper setup, and then it's also a thing of familiarization. The stereo-image you get with a proper nearfield setup is about optimal to judge your decisions in that regard.



gsilbers @ 2011-01-22 said:


> The second problem is that the high frequency response of speakers that are to be used as nearfields has to be tailored for such close use, so they won't bite your ear, so not just any speaker can be used as a nearfield.


Depends on the speakers.
If it's too much, shelf the highs off. Again .. with a proper setup, everything should be ok. It's not like this would be a big deal.



gsilbers @ 2011-01-22 said:


> The third problem is that very few of the speakers designed as nearfields have adequate dynamics and low frequency extension.


The low frequencies are indeed a problem of most nearfield-speakers.
It's hard (or even impossible?) to get an accurate bass with a 2-way-system. And in the nearfield it's not easy to get a good setup with more-way-speakers or an additional subwoofer.



gsilbers @ 2011-01-22 said:


> The fourth problem is that nearfield monitoring exagerrates transients and affects your perception of the relationship of lead and solo versus rhythm. The fifth problem is that nearfield position exagerrates ambience, creating a higher ratio of direct to room sound. So nearfields are not particularly good for anything, *either mixing or mastering!*


Again, it's a thing of *familiarization*.
If you know, how it's _supposed_ to sound, you can get it to sound alike (if you know, how to do your job, of course). And then those accurate (NOT exagerrated) transients etc. are a great help.

Of course, the nearfield should not be _too close_ ... then the amount of transients, room information, etc. can be overwhelming and distract from the "big picture".
I think this might actually be a good analogy. To get a sense of the whole picture, you have to view it from some distance (so rather "main"), but to see/draw some of the details, you have to get a closer look (nearfield).
So you shouldn't be too close, but also not too far away.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jan 22, 2011)

I agree with almost everything he's saying, even though some of it may be a little bit extreme. Then again I also agree with ETA, especially the point about not being too close. A lot of people make that mistake, thinking that you want to eliminate as much of the room as possible. Wrong.

The only thing I really disagree with Bob about subjectively is the imaging. He may be talking about mastering rather than mixing, but I like being able to hear the detail. Yeah it's wide on NFMs, but it's also a lot more precise than you get with normal big speakers ("normal" because there are big speakers with wide dispersion acoustic lenses invented by my friend Dave Moulton that have amazing imaging).

The big difference with NFMs as far as I'm concerned is the dynamic range, as Bob says - and I mean within a piece, not overall; you can turn them up and down, but that's different. After that the difference is the quality of the bass (as opposed to the level, which you can bring back with a subwoofer). My theory is that it's simply because of the size of the box.

In any case, Bob is a very bright and knowledgeable guy, and he's a great engineer. So while his opinions are sometimes eccentric, they're never groundless.

I like having both NFMs and big speakers: Blue Sky System One (6.5" sats with a really well integrated 12" subwoofer, and UREI 809As (don't tell anybody but I have to admit to liking them even though I know they're not perfect).


----------



## Frederick Russ (Jan 22, 2011)

I second Nick's assessment: Bob Katz is no slouch and usually has a deeper reason for saying what he does regardless of whose belief systems - however common - it may threaten. Seems to me, near field monitoring was originally supposed to be a double check against what the engineer was hearing in the mains in the context of large recording studios. 

Near-field monitoring has come to dominate the industry in gross sales over mains and mid-fields. Because of the economics involved in the ever growing market of home recording, who could really afford to break into home recording with mains as a consideration when most starter home studios were nothing more than converted bedrooms or living rooms. Adding a main to that type of scenario makes no sense. Mains were actually designed as a final component in a well thought out scheme where acoustic design plays an integral part of the entire package. Mastering in a bedroom is not the same as mastering in a high end studio which was designed from the bottom up by engineers.

Mid-field monitoring may be a natural next step up from near-fields. Quested and Barefoot make really great mid-field monitors which in my opinion (which carries considerably less weight than Mr Katz) might do just fine in a well designed room for mastering purposes. Although I still think near-fields would still play a role in that scenario as a double-check against what is being heard through the mid-fields before printing mixes.


----------



## lux (Jan 23, 2011)

EnTaroAdun @ Sat Jan 22 said:


> Again, it's a thing of *familiarization*.
> If you know, how it's _supposed_ to sound, you can get it to sound alike (if you know, how to do your job, of course). And then those accurate (NOT exagerrated) transients etc. are a great help.



i tend to agree with that.


----------



## david robinson (Jan 23, 2011)

hi,
my studio is/has always been based around large monitors.
yes, i've NF's but rarely use them. (dyn's)
really excellent monitors cost big money.
a different kettle of fish.
NF's all day = ear fatigue.
Large Monitors? can work 15hrs straight, no problemo, at reasonable levels.
plus the bass - OMG i can feel 40Hz!!!, as well as balance it.
j.


----------



## rayinstirling (Jan 23, 2011)

I use only nearfield monitoring but it is a Bluesky system so I do hear and feel the bass. Not ideal? well in my small room I won't find anything perform much better.
If circumstances were different I would certainly follow Bob Katz's advice.


----------



## jamwerks (Jan 23, 2011)

Well, people listen on near fields, so mixing on them seem logical. Mastering is another story! /\~O


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Jan 23, 2011)

Actually, I'm starting to think that most people listen on earbuds.


----------



## Tanuj Tiku (Jan 23, 2011)

This is a really interesting topic.


I think as a start when you probably most definitely need a 'Full Range Monitoring System'.

This is because you need to absolutely know whats going on between 20-20,000. 

Well, I cant hear above 18 Khz anymore and I am only 27! But you get the point.

The low end is particularly a problem.

Once you have narrowed down on your basic mix in terms where everything is in the frequency spectrum - sure its probably a good idea to listen for comparison on a smaller system. 

I am in constant touch with Philip Newell and will be sure to ask him about his theory.

I am putting up a control room which is designed by him. He has reccomended Reflexion Arts Loudspeakers with Neva Audio Amps and Crossovers.

These have the TAD-2001 HF driver and the JBL bass drivers. This system has extremely low distortion - extremely fast HF response which is mandatory for cinema sound and also this system can alone go down to 20 Hz without a sub. 

And I have read most of his book as well. There is an interesting chapter about the NS-10M. He has actually gone to the ISVR and measured the speakers frequency response and also talked about what was going on when the speakers came out. 

They were originally meant to be book shelf commercial speakers. But the engineers used it a lot because it gave them a sense of how it would playback on an average system and another big reason was portability. Apparently lot of engineers would just carry these speakers around to various studios. 

Philip is also proposing a new format for Dolby and Cinema sound and also SMPTE. 

So he really knows what he is talking about.

I will be sure to get his thoughts on this.


Best,

Tanuj.


----------



## tripit (Jan 23, 2011)

That you shouldn't use NF for mixing is about one of the most silly comments I've heard regarding mixing. NF is what just about every mix engineer uses for 95% of the mix. 

NF have been dominate since the 70's. And the reason why is:
A. they are more likely the same as the speakers the end users will be listening back on.
B. they fit nicely on the console of desks
C. they are most likely the same as the speakers the end users will be listening back on. 

If you hire Bob Clearmountain to mix your record, he is still going to do it on NS10 and check it with Apple speakers. Not to mention others CLA, TLA etc. Of course, a lot of them have moved to what could be considered a NF/MF 3 way speaker like Barefoot, o300 etc. But, still very much in the NF position, just broader range. 

Bob Katz is a rep mastering engineer, I would defer to him for mastering, but not tracking or mixing advise. Mastering is whole other breed of engineer - different genes, extra ear hair and hyper attention to minute detail. 

Sounds like something a mastering engineer would come up with.
Just sayin...


----------



## gsilbers (Jan 23, 2011)

we have some audio post clients that want to listen back their TV show in the small speakers of 
a ctr TV we have. because they say more than half of the audience in the US listens in such small speakers. so they wanna at least listen one pass with such speakers. 

but from what bob said , i was not aware of difference transient response between near field and other speakers. and the relation of solo vs rhythm instruments. thats very interesting.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jan 23, 2011)

Tripit, I think you're missing everything he's saying.


----------



## wst3 (Jan 23, 2011)

Nick Batzdorf @ Sat Jan 22 said:


> <snip>
> In any case, Bob is a very bright and knowledgeable guy, and he's a great engineer. So while his opinions are sometimes eccentric, they're never groundless.


Sometimes??? I like Bob a lot, I've had a great many e-conversations with him on the pro-audio list server, and I've always walked away with new knowledge.

I think your point about mastering vs. tracking or mixing is an important one. It really is a separate art, with different requirements... not the least of which is guessing how people will listen to each recording<G>!!! Yeah, I want that job!



Nick Batzdorf @ Sat Jan 22 said:


> I like having both NFMs and big speakers: Blue Sky System One (6.5" sats with a really well integrated 12" subwoofer, and UREI 809As (don't tell anybody but I have to admit to liking them even though I know they're not perfect).


Sorry, your secret is out! And we've found something else we agree on<G>... I still have my 809s... I've tried many tweaks, setting the polarity of the tweeters right, reconfiguring the cross-overs, etc, and frankly, it is the stock sound that I enjoy. No, it isn't right, but it is cool! I think a big part of my fascination with these is that I "grew up" listening to Altec 604s, which are very similar in character (at least in my recollection).

The one thing I'd recommend to anyone who uses them is to 'dog house' them. It does not take much of an extended baffle to smooth out, and extend the bottom end. I know they weren't designed to be used that way, but they work quite well in that configuration.

My 'ultimate' monitoring environment would still include a pair of 809s, or one of their bigger brothers if the room were large enough, along with a good set of near field monitors - and I think that a sub-woofer is pretty much required when you shrink the box and drivers enough to build near-field monitors. BUT, I'd also have big old mains built (properly and appropriately) into the front wall. Tannoy still makes some great drivers for such applications!


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jan 23, 2011)

wst3, what is doghousing? Do you mean soffit mounting?

I'd love to do that, but my room has windows at the front.


----------



## wst3 (Jan 23, 2011)

Yes, I mean soffit mounting... every time I use that term I am reminded that they are not real soffits<G>... so I went back to calling them dog houses - which is equally inaccurate.

Here's a trick I've used in rooms where a full second wall was not possible...

build panels from sheetrock and lumber that cut off the corners of the room - the exact geometry takes some work, but it is also easy to experiment with this approach. Place the 809s on really dense, heavy, solid stands so that they can not possibly pass energy to the floor or the new false wall. Cut out openings in the two panels just slightly larger than the 809s. Position the loudspeakers on their stands and then place the panels in front the loudspeakers, with the loudspeaker flush with the surface. Once you have the geometry of the loudspeakers working for you attach the panels to the real walls.

I think you'll be pleased, and even a bit surprised, with the effectiveness of this. No, it isn't perfect, but it really works.


----------



## jamwerks (Jan 23, 2011)

Strange thoughts by Katz, also because he suggests 8040’s in a mid-field setup. Most mixers I know think 8040’s are too "pretty" and not very revealing! >8o


----------



## Hans Adamson (Jan 23, 2011)

For most people that do not have a properly designed control room, NFM's are probably their best chance of getting an accurate mix, I believe. Studio size monitors will excite the room and introduce characteristics of the room in a way that is avoided by using NFM's. I would like to be able to use large monitors, but I am afraid I would be mixing the room in the mix. (o)


----------



## wst3 (Jan 23, 2011)

Hans Adamson @ Sun Jan 23 said:


> For most people that do not have a properly designed control room, NFM's are probably their best chance of getting an accurate mix, I believe. Studio size monitors will excite the room and introduce characteristics of the room in a way that is avoided by using NFM's. I would like to be able to use large monitors, but I am afraid I would be mixing the room in the mix. (o)



I quite agree... I think this discussion assumes a well tamed space. The monitoring environment includes pretty much everything from the amplifier through the speakers and into the room... and to the ear/brain. If any of those pieces of the puzzle is not up to the task, well, then the task will suffer.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jan 23, 2011)

Actually I would argue with you, Hans. Or at least I'd qualify the central premise that the reason you're sitting close to the speakers is to "eliminate the room."

That's a whole discussion - one that I've posted about before. The main point is that you don't have to do a whole lot to make a room work well enough to work in.

What you're saying is the conventional wisdom, but I believe it's wrong. I do agree that speakers that are too big for the room don't work, however, e.g. I have the 809As rather than the 813s like Mike Greene's for that reason.


----------



## wst3 (Jan 23, 2011)

Nick Batzdorf @ Sun Jan 23 said:


> Actually I would argue with you, Hans. Or at least I'd qualify the central premise that the reason you're sitting close to the speakers is to "eliminate the room."
> 
> That's a whole discussion - one that I've posted about before. The main point is that you don't have to do a whole lot to make a room work well enough to work in.
> 
> What you're saying is the conventional wisdom, but I believe it's wrong. I do agree that speakers that are too big for the room don't work, however, e.g. I have the 809As rather than the 813s like Mike Greene's for that reason.



I think we might be splitting hairs here, at least a little.

The object of near field loudspeakers is to minimize the impact of early (bad) reflections, and this is done by getting the direct sound to be sufficiently higher in amplitude than the reflections. This is the same trick we use when designing large scale sound reinforcement systems, if you can get the direct sound to be louder than the reflections you improve intelligibility... as one example.

Now, I don't completely agree with this approach... I think the room is important, no matter how well - or poorly - it is treated. Way back in the dark ages I had the privilege of debating the whole Live-End-Dead-End (tm) concept with a couple of the early designers. It was actually pretty cheeky of me, and they did a pretty good job of explaining how it was supposed to work and why it would translate well into lots of other spaces.

But they did not convert me<G>... and the same is true for near field monitors. I understand the concept, I'm just not sure it is always going to be applicable.

I do disagree with your idea that you don't have to do a whole lot to make a room usable... in fact I think it is probably more important to get the room acoustically "right" than almost anything else. The problem is, well, it is not a trivial exercise to do so!

The other thing, and I proved this to myself once by accident, is that absent a really well designed monitoring system in a really well designed space, the single most important factor when monitoring is familiarity. How well do you know your monitoring environment?

Many years ago a friend asked me to help him put together a demo CD for local gigs. I did not, at the time, have access to my studio, so I wasn't real thrilled, but he was a good friend, and so with appropriate caveats I agreed. We recorded the tracks in his living room, with a vaulted ceiling and a stupidly low noise floor - heck, it was better than some purpose built studios I've worked in.

And I mixed it in my office, on not terribly great home hifi loudspeakers.

How?

Well, I had spent countless hours in that office, writing code, designing circuits, writing papers, etc, and during all of those hours I had listened to music that was pretty similar to what he played. That familiarity with what my horrible little office sounded like saved my bacon... in fact the project turned out better than I ever expected.

So, I would rank the components of a good monitoring system in the following order:
1) good ears
2) familiarity with the entire system
3) the loudspeakers themselves
4) loudspeaker placement (with respect to the listener)
5) ambient noise
6) early reflections and symmetry
7) room modes

That is one person's experience...


----------



## RiffWraith (Jan 23, 2011)

Very strange comments from such a well-respected, experienced and knowledgeable "artist". Very strange indeed, at least from the mixing perspective. How many albums have been mixed on NFMs, with an occasional check on the Mains, vs. the other way around?


----------



## wst3 (Jan 23, 2011)

RiffWraith @ Sun Jan 23 said:


> Very strange comments from such a well-respected, experienced and knowledgeable "artist". Very strange indeed, at least from the mixing perspective. How many albums have been mixed on NFMs, with an occasional check on the Mains, vs. the other way around?



Not so strange really... tracking, mixing, and mastering are three very different activities. On top of that, the "mains" used in most mastering rooms are different than the "mains" used in most mixing or tracking rooms.

I think your observation is spot on - over the last 20 years (maybe, it's all a blur) NFMs have become the standard for mixing, not to get the room out of the equation so much as to better represent what the consumer might be listening to. At least that was the idea!


----------



## Hans Adamson (Jan 23, 2011)

Nick Batzdorf @ Sun Jan 23 said:


> Actually I would argue with you, Hans. Or at least I'd qualify the central premise that the reason you're sitting close to the speakers is to "eliminate the room."
> 
> That's a whole discussion - one that I've posted about before. The main point is that you don't have to do a whole lot to make a room work well enough to work in.
> 
> What you're saying is the conventional wisdom, but I believe it's wrong. I do agree that speakers that are too big for the room don't work, however, e.g. I have the 809As rather than the 813s like Mike Greene's for that reason.


You may be right Nick. I wouldn't mind having Mike's speakers, or a size smaller and a treated room. At the moment I am still working on Tannoy System 8's in an untreated room. However, before setting them up, I measured the frequency response for different positions to get the most accurate. I have learned how well recorded reference music sounds on them, and they have served me well when mixing.
/Hans


----------



## tripit (Jan 23, 2011)

Nick Batzdorf @ Sun Jan 23 said:


> Tripit, I think you're missing everything he's saying.



No I got what he was saying, I just don't agree with his blanket statement referring to specifically about *mixing*. It's just not accurate. It flies in the face of convention and the thousands of great sounding mixes that have been done predominately on NF. 
He has some interesting theories, but I think they apply to mastering and not mixing. 
The confines of space, equipment alone are an issue. Not to mention that mixing is not a scientific process. It's an art form that relies on skills beyond a perfect sound field. 
Just go ask Bob Clearmountain with his NS10 sitting on his 4k console or CLA or TLA or any number of engineers and producers who use NF daily to produce great sounding records.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jan 23, 2011)

I think Bob Katz is aware of how many people use NFMs, tripit. But as long as you get what his arguments are, fine. As I said, I do use and like NFMs, but they do have issues.



> I think we might be splitting hairs here, at least a little.
> 
> The object of near field loudspeakers is to minimize the impact of early (bad) reflections, and this is done by getting the direct sound to be sufficiently higher in amplitude than the reflections.



Well, not exactly. That's the conventional wisdom, but...okay, I guess I brought it up, so... 

Okay. The only "bad" reflections are the ones coming from the same angle as the speakers, i.e. from the front of the room (and possibly console splash). Those are the ones that combine with the sound coming from the speakers and confuse the issue; reflections coming from the sides are important, and the psychoacoustics prevent them from comb filtering. Unlike mics, our brains separate them from what's coming out of the speakers, in fact they help us hear what's coming out of the speakers.

So if you have excess reverb in a room, the idea is to get rid of it at the front of the room. (Muffling the side walls just interferes with the frequency response of the room.) If you do that, you can hear well no matter how far back you are.

www.moultonlabs.com <- that's my friend Dave Moulton's website, and he has a lot about this.

Also, the bounces off the walls aren't heard as early reflections of whatever's on the recording - that's what the recording is! (Unless it's a synth with no ambience, of course.) It's sort of counterintuitive, but I've done a lot of reading, thinking, and playing with this over the years and I've become totally convinced it's right.

By the way, proof that we can localize sounds perfectly without them comb filtering fro the sides: go into a really live gym and close your eyes. You can tell exactly where everything is. Jeff L.'s argument is that you don't localize as well in such a live room - he brought that up last time I 'splained this here - but...he's wrong. 

Having said all that, rooms with the conventional "reflection-free zones" can also work well even if they're "incorrect." It's just a different sound. I personally find it harder to judge the amount of reverb in that kind of a room, but as ETA says, it's all a matter of adjustment anyway.

This is all cocktail party theory.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jan 23, 2011)

Hans, those Tannoys are BMFs - bad mofos. I used to use them, and they're excellent.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jan 23, 2011)

One other point: if the goal is to represent what the mix is going to be played on, in my opinion it's much better to work in a normal room than one that's deadened unnaturally.

But I think the real reason so many engineers mix with NS-10s is precisely *because* of their problems. If you can make it sound good on them, it'll sound good on anything.

They have a midrange boost, but I think it's the limited dynamic range that does it. Details that are easy to hear on better speakers get lost on them.


----------



## germancomponist (Jan 24, 2011)

vibrato @ Mon Jan 24 said:


> Here is a picture of such a room: http://www.gearslutz.com/board/atta...ght-year-so-far-raindirk-ln3-lami-producc.jpg
> 
> The Wide-Band absorber in the rear traps as much sound as it can and so do the side walls and the ceiling.
> 
> I am going for this kind of a control room and will be sure to post a thread here about it during construction and my results with it.



Tanuj, this is a cool concept, very interesting!


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jan 24, 2011)

On iPad so brief, but I need to clarify that I'm not trying to reduce everything in room design to soaking up excess reverb at the front! It's just a way of making standard rooms usable without calling in the architects.

And I'm making the point that you can't and wouldn't want to "eliminate the room."


----------



## Tanuj Tiku (Jan 24, 2011)

One more important point about Non-Environment Rooms is compatibility.


LEDE rooms will differ from room to room.

But because of what a Non-Environment Room offers - there can be a very wide compatibility range. You can move from one NE room to another without much difference since the room really does not have a sound of its own.

At this point in time, this is the only standard that can be adopted for wide industry compatibility.

I am sure as you know, even newer LEDE rooms are reducing decay times and hard front wall is almost standard now. 


LEDE may work in recording rooms though.



Tanuj.


----------



## germancomponist (Jan 24, 2011)

vibrato @ Mon Jan 24 said:


> LEDE may work in recording rooms though.


It depends on where you position the mics.


----------



## wst3 (Jan 24, 2011)

germancomponist @ Mon Jan 24 said:


> vibrato @ Mon Jan 24 said:
> 
> 
> > LEDE may work in recording rooms though.
> ...



The joys of quasi-interactive communications!!!

When one speaks of a recording room, do you mean the actual space where the players play and the microphones pick up sound, or the control room where tracking decisions are made?

If the former, some form of varying acoustical behavior is really common, and dates back to the beginnings of recording, and even before that really, early broadcast studios often had live, dead, and in-between sections.

If the later, this is where I think the whole LEDE(tm) or RFZ(tm) idea shines. If you hear the reflections that are happening in the recording space before you hear the reflections in the monitoring space you can make much more well informed decisions about the tracks.

Once you get past that stage, well, I think it's a lot murkier. For mixing I prefer to mix on a variety of loudspeakers in a room with few early reflections, but some ambiance none-the-less. That's what a listening room sounds like to me, and I think I can make decisions about balance between the tracks, and more important, amounts of delay and reverb, when I'm not fighting the room - but I fully accept that my listening experience while mixing will be different from the 'typical' customer.

In my old space I first mixed on the 809s, then I would listen on Yorkville YSMs, which were my favorite NFM at that time, and then Polk Model 5s with their sub. When I reached the point where it sounded more-or-less the same on all three systems I'd smile! I also still have the Toa version of the old Auralex cubes, and I'll check a mix on those, and sometimes this crappy, but probably typical computer speaker system from a manufacturer who probably wishes they'd never let their name be attached to such a product.

But I still don't believe that the mix is finished, or rather that the entire process is finished. At that point I send it off to a mastering engineer who uses his ears, his really cool processors, and his loudspeakers & room to make it right for real.

I suppose if I worked at it hard enough I could become a mastering engineer, but it is a very specialized niche in a niche, and I'm quite happy to let those who do it well do their thing.

Which brings up an interesting (to me) question... when you folks mix a track for film or video or whatever other not-a-record application do you still use a mastering engineer, or do you depend on the mixers who add it to the film? I find that for stuff I write and render I don't use the services of a mastering engineer... but the budgets for the projects I am working on don't often have much room for music to start<G>!

For stuff I write for live theatre I do not use a mastering engineer - first off, they'd have to hear the space in which the music and sfx are going to be played, not a trivial task! Second, we don't really make all the decisions about how to treat the tracks until very late in the cycle, often the final tech rehearsal, at which time there would be no time to have them properly mastered.

Comments?


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jan 24, 2011)

> If you hear the reflections that are happening in the recording space before you hear the reflections in the monitoring space you can make much more well informed decisions about the tracks.



Okay, I don't follow that.


----------



## wst3 (Jan 24, 2011)

Nick Batzdorf @ Mon Jan 24 said:


> > If you hear the reflections that are happening in the recording space before you hear the reflections in the monitoring space you can make much more well informed decisions about the tracks.
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, I don't follow that.



Oh Good Grief... no pressure here eh? Hope I can explain this well enough:

Assumption - the volume of the recording space is greater than the volume of the monitoring space, hence the distance from any wall to the microphone is greater than the distance from any wall to the ears of the engineer.

Further assumption - we put the vocalist in this room because we like the effect of the room on the vocalist.

Take a simple case, recording a single instrument or vocalist in an older style space. The singer sings a note, the microphone picks up the direct sound, and reflections from the surrounding walls. If the wall is X feet from the microphone then the reflection takes Y seconds to return to the microphone. This reflection necessarily adds to, or colors, the sound of the vocalist. 

Now run into the control room. The sound from the microphone comes out of the loudspeakers, and the direct sound goes to the engineers ears. Next, the sound in the control room bounces off the (closer) walls and goes to the engineers ears. Then, the sounds of the reflections from the walls in the recording space comes through the loudspeakers and goes to the engineers ears. Then that same sound bounces off the walls and arrives at the engineer's ears.

So the engineer hears the vocalist, the contribution from the room where the vocalist is singing, and contributions from the monitoring space.

It is certainly possible that the engineer wants to hear the contributions from the control room walls. And if that's the case we're done. And I can think of numerous control rooms where this happened and the resulting recordings are awesome... so I am not saying that one can not work in this setting.

However, if one could eliminate the "early" reflections from the control room walls one would hear only the vocalist and the contributions from the recording space walls. And for some folks, that is preferable.

Now in this simple case, or for an acoustic guitar, or a solo trumpet, or any number of other sources it really wouldn't make a huge difference. The early reflections won't have a huge impact on tracking decisions such as how much compression to use, or whether or not equalization is necessary.

But let's put an ensemble in the space. Maybe it's guitars, bass, and drums, maybe it's a string quartet or a brass choir, maybe it's an orchestra. No matter which, it's a LOT more complex sound, and the resulting reflections in both the recording space and the control room are also more complex. And now the inability to differentiate between reflections in the recording space (which we have selected because we like the sound of the room) and the reflections in the control room can affect every decision.

Note again that this is tracking, not mixing, not mastering, and most certainly not working with virtual instruments. The goal for a tracking session is (was?) to capture recordings of great performances with no flaws so that someone could mix them to create a great recording. As the first step it seems to me that it is the most vulnerable to problems caused by early reflections.

Does any of this make any sense at all???


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jan 24, 2011)

Okay, I think you're saying that if the reflections off the monitoring room's walls hit your ears before the ones on the recording, it's not as good as the other way around.

Intuitively that sounds wrong, but I'll have to think about that so I don't say something stupid.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jan 24, 2011)

...and we're back.

This is the best way I can explain it: if you're in the room with the singer, you're hearing the voice plus the reflections as one sound (unless it's an anechoic chamber, and we know that's all wrong).

If you then move into the control room, there's no difference: the speaker plus the early reflections of the room are the speaker sound, i.e. the speaker is no different from the live singer in that way. In other words the early reflections from the control room walls help you hear the speaker properly, independently of how long or short the reflections are on the live or recorded singer (and through speakers there's no difference between the live singer or a recording anyway).

I guess I'm just repeating what I wrote before in different words. 

Early reflections from the sides are a good thing. Flat, hard surfaces on the sides are a good thing. Sticking absorbent material on the sides just sticks a lowpass filter in the early reflections and messes up the sound.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jan 24, 2011)

I didn't even need to bother. Here's an interview I did with Moulton over 15 years ago when I was at Recording magazine. He says almost exactly what I just wrote, except without hemming and hawing.

http://www.moultonlabs.com/dave_more/ni ... interview/

This is perfect: "What happens is that the early reflections of the playback room carry information about the recording room quite well."


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Jan 24, 2011)

Thanks for that, Nick! Good thing the side bass-traps in my new studio are not hung up yet.


----------



## tripit (Jan 24, 2011)

wst3 @ Mon Jan 24 said:


> Which brings up an interesting (to me) question... when you folks mix a track for film or video or whatever other not-a-record application do you still use a mastering engineer, or do you depend on the mixers who add it to the film? I find that for stuff I write and render I don't use the services of a mastering engineer... but the budgets for the projects I am working on don't often have much room for music to start<G>!
> 
> For stuff I write for live theatre I do not use a mastering engineer - first off, they'd have to hear the space in which the music and sfx are going to be played, not a trivial task! Second, we don't really make all the decisions about how to treat the tracks until very late in the cycle, often the final tech rehearsal, at which time there would be no time to have them properly mastered.
> 
> Comments?



On rock and pop music, I've always had a mastering engineer, but for film and tv the only time has been when a score was released as a record - which I've only done twice. If you work on TV or independent films, there is no budget or time to get stuff mastered. I've developed my own quasi mastering, which is nothing more than some decent but very light compression and maybe some finishing EQ. 
I would think this holds true for most if not all of us. We have to serve as our own mastering engineers. 
One thing I've learned is not to leave anything up to the film mix engineer - those guys just throw up the score and never treat it - unless for some reason there is a major conflict going on. They have even less time then we do and their primary concern is the dialog 1st, folly 2nd, sound design 3rd and music is almost always dead last, unless of course there is nothing else going on.


----------



## tripit (Jan 24, 2011)

Nick Batzdorf @ Mon Jan 24 said:


> I didn't even need to bother. Here's an interview I did with Moulton over 15 years ago when I was at Recording magazine. He says almost exactly what I just wrote, except without hemming and hawing.
> 
> http://www.moultonlabs.com/dave_more/ni ... interview/
> 
> This is perfect: "What happens is that the early reflections of the playback room carry information about the recording room quite well."



Interesting and makes sense. I prefer a more live room. I just iron out the modes with corner traps and some front wall treatment.


----------



## wst3 (Jan 24, 2011)

Nick Batzdorf @ Mon Jan 24 said:


> I didn't even need to bother. Here's an interview I did with Moulton over 15 years ago when I was at Recording magazine. He says almost exactly what I just wrote, except without hemming and hawing.
> 
> http://www.moultonlabs.com/dave_more/ni ... interview/
> 
> This is perfect: "What happens is that the early reflections of the playback room carry information about the recording room quite well."



I am going to have to respectfully disagree... at least it is contrary to my experience. I have tremendous respect for Dave Moulton, I think he is right about a lot of things, nearly everything in fact, but that quote just doesn't hold up to what I've experienced.

I have to re-read the interview, probably more than once, and then I'll try to sound intelligent<G>.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jan 24, 2011)

Well, I'd suggest starting with the premise that he's right and you don't quite get it.  He's a very unassuming guy, but what he's saying is not opinion.

What is opinion is whether you prefer a different kind of sound. There's nothing wrong with that, just as there's nothing wrong with using NFMs even though what Bob Katz says is true.

Same with rooms that are totally foamed up from top to toe. Gabe S. did that and he's happy with his set-up, so anyone who tells him he's wrong would be foolish.


----------



## rayinstirling (Jan 25, 2011)

Nick,

Thanks for sharing that interview here.
In my own little room I have the monitors angled up slightly and forward on plinths above the desk. Relatively speaking, and considering my limited skill, this setup works better for me than any other previous attempts at getting a half decent mix.


----------



## Dan Mott (Feb 3, 2011)

I have the adam A5s........ so why is it that they sound fine when playing it ourside the studio on a million different systems??

Who has loud speakers anyway? Not many people. Either people are listening to desktop speakers, laptop speakers and earbuds. Sooooooooo......... That's kinda strange.

The highs are never harsh for me, I don't monitor loud and that's where alot of people go wrong, they monitor too loud and they get the whole depth and stereo perception wrong! Most people who've been in the industry long do mix loud, too loud and you can tell if they have because there's no depth in the mix and there's no highs and also no bass.

I don't agree with everything Bob katz said.


----------



## Dan Mott (Feb 3, 2011)

Can I ask......... Has anyone here listened to Mathazzar's mixes? They are top notch IMO and he doesn't EQ or compress at all, only lite, and it works.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Feb 3, 2011)

Ray, angling the monitors is legal! It's one way of dealing with console splash (or probably desktop splash in our case).

Dan, I think the answer to why your mixes sound fine on other systems is that you've figured out how to mix well!


----------



## rayinstirling (Feb 4, 2011)

Dan-Jay @ Fri Feb 04 said:


> Can I ask......... Has anyone here listened to Mathazzar's mixes? They are top notch IMO and he doesn't EQ or compress at all, only lite, and it works.



Obviously it's down to having great ears. Without them no amount of technology will help.


----------



## Dietz (Feb 4, 2011)

rayinstirling @ Fri Feb 04 said:


> [...] Obviously it's down to having great ears. Without them no amount of technology will help.


Thanks for that. It all boils down to this.


----------



## Udo (Feb 5, 2011)

Dietz @ Sat Feb 05 said:


> rayinstirling @ Fri Feb 04 said:
> 
> 
> > [...] Obviously it's down to having great ears. Without them no amount of technology will help.
> ...


......, but, as a side note (no pun intended), I pity those people with "great ears", who cannot "switch off" that analytical/critical "technical" listening and thereby reduce/inhibit their music "experience" when listening for pleasure.


----------



## wst3 (Feb 5, 2011)

Udo @ Sat Feb 05 said:


> ......, but, as a side note (no pun intended), I pity those people with "great ears", who cannot "switch off" that analytical/critical "technical" listening and thereby reduce/inhibit their music "experience" when listening for pleasure.



One of the most difficult tricks for most of us I'd guess. I have, within the last ten years or so, arrived at a point where I can listen to a great song on really crappy desktop speakers playing a poorly compressed MP3 and still love it, and be moved by it... if it is a great song and a great performance.

It wasn't something I set out to do. On the contrary, I did set out to learn to listen critically. I started by learning to hear problems, hum, hiss, rattles, chairs moving, etc. From there I learned to listen to the technical aspects of performances, at least for some instruments, and then I learned how and when to use processing.

Somewhere along the way it became something of a chore to just listen to music for enjoyment, I'd be thinking about what was wrong instead of what was right.

At some point I stopped doing that. I don't know how, and I don't know why, but I am glad I got the gift of music back!

I still can't deal with out-of-tune instruments though<G>...


----------



## rayinstirling (Feb 6, 2011)

Udo @ Sun Feb 06 said:


> ......, but, as a side note (no pun intended), I pity those people with "great ears", who cannot "switch off" that analytical/critical "technical" listening and thereby reduce/inhibit their music "experience" when listening for pleasure.



You are coming at it from a slightly different direction. I really don't get bogged down to that extent. As wst says, a good tune is a good tune regardless of eq etc.
I wasn't talking about "great ears" so much, but simply "good ears". 

Having no intention of going to the "n"th degree with room treatment etc. in my music room here, I simply want to get the best recording I can under the circumstances I find myself in. To do that, I fire up a few CD tracks of various genre which I have enjoyed over the years on many different playback systems. I've set my particular monitor system up (positioning etc) so these tracks sound the most musical to my ear.

It may be analytical/critical listening but I can only go by my own judgement. If it isn't good "I'm stuffed"


----------

