| Author
|
work with monitors + recording
|
bilbobagginz
Started Topics :
8
Posts :
399
Posted : Jun 20, 2008 03:36:03
|
Hi, guys.
I am planning to buy a pair of monitors for myself. I want to ask some very basic questions:
<*> how can one calculate a size+power of stereo monitors his room can actually handle ?
<*> Is there a NEED to work at high volumes ? I mean, we all need to hear the sounds. but high volume makes our ears deafened. Do we all want to end up deaf ?
<*> I understand a "good" studio monitor should neither distort the frequency, nor the phase... how can I measure it ?
Is there a tool to see how much phase shift occurs ?
<*> Assuming there's a certain model of monitors I want to buy: is there a SERIOUS difference between one monitors set to another of the SAME model, I mean... how similar is the sound of a particular model ?
<*> Given a serious release is going to be "tested" on many types of monitors to make sure it sounds OK on any type of speaker.... How important is the "really flat" sound of your home studio monitors, if anyway the track would be remixed at studio, by serious guys - sound engineers...
<*> How is the actual production done: do people bring their mixdown channels, or do they actually run midi/audio sequencers at studios ? I mean... one uses Logic, others Pro Tools, others Cubase, some use Sonar... is there a common denominator ? simple audio channels ?
Cheers!
|
|
|
Alex Roudos
IsraTrance Junior Member
Started Topics :
33
Posts :
411
Posted : Jun 20, 2008 11:40
|
1. The bigger the room is, the bigger monitors it can "handle".
2. The only need is to work at 85dbs SPL when critical listening is in process(mixing down for example) because at this level the human hearing is most linear according to the Fletcher-Munson curve. And it won't make you deaf.
3. By how much it costs.
4. If different models of the same brand were sounding similar(but it's unclear what you mean exactly), i don't see any reason why the company would bother manufacturing more than one models. Each brand probably has a similar general sound for its speakers, but that would be it. According to your needs you select the right model.
5. Very important. If your monitors are not really flat, then you would be compensating in some way for certain frequencies. Something that can't be really undone by the serious guys.
6. Exporting each track as a wav file, with no processing in the master bus, in the sample rate/bit depth the mixing engineer will ask for.
7. Acoustic treatment is needed prior to all the above in order to obtain the best possible results.
 A friend told me once that the biggest mistake we make is that we believe we live, when in reality we are sleeping in the waiting room of life. |
|
|
|
bilbobagginz
Started Topics :
8
Posts :
399
Posted : Jun 21, 2008 19:49
|
Thanx, man. Is there some math and explanations I can read online about the size vs. monitor power ?
> 3. By how much it costs.
I see.
now, the size of the monitor usually is related to the lowest freq. it can output.
so, big monitor - can't be put in a small room, and thus you can't work on really low bass with a small room. right ?
>4. If different models of the same brand were
>sounding similar(but it's unclear what you mean
>exactly), i don't see any reason why the
>company would bother manufacturing more than
>one models. Each brand probably has a similar
>general sound for its speakers, but that would
>be it. According to your needs you select the
>right model.
I wasn't clear: Let's see there's some company XYZ Audio. and they have a line of monitors called "A35B.12"
So, we take 2 pairs of this "A35B.12", and listen to them.
How different will they be ? very much or not very much ?
I mean: I want to go to a store and listen to monitors. and then to order them via ebay, or import them. how much am I risking to get a different sounding monitors ?
The rest of the feedback is GREAT!
Thanks, man.
|
|
|
|
Alex Roudos
IsraTrance Junior Member
Started Topics :
33
Posts :
411
Posted : Jun 21, 2008 20:40
|
I don't know if there is any kind of math and explanations about the size vs. monitor power, and i can't see why you are so interested in that.
The bigger the housing of the monitor, the bigger the woofer will be and of course the amplifiers will be accordingly powerful to utilize the size of the construction and woofers mainly. Simple.
A monitor outputs sound, and reproduces frequencies. The most critical part is how it reproduces all frequencies and especially the low ones.
You can use a bigger monitor in a not so big room. But you must have extensive bass absorption. Monitors are categorized to nearfields, midfields and main or control room monitors. Typical rooms of up to 25-30m2 are suitable for up to 8" monitors(or smaller ones with a sub) always in direct relation to the acoustic treatment for optimum results.
Same monitor models of the same brand are supposed to sound the same, unless they are defected. However, listening to monitors in a shop, most probably will be very different sounding than your room. Because, most shops have their monitors placed one after another and touching each other(in many cases) and of course they are totally untreated. On the other hand your room has its own sound that will affect how the monitors will sound(with and without acoustic treatment).
Best way always is to demo the monitors you are interested in, in your own room but this is mostly impossible for the majority of us. Or try and find someone close to you that has the ones you want and arrange if possible to demo them in his place, which would be imo, more accurate unless the shop has what it takes for a decent listening of their monitors.
A friend told me once that the biggest mistake we make is that we believe we live, when in reality we are sleeping in the waiting room of life. |
|
|
|
Alex Roudos
IsraTrance Junior Member
Started Topics :
33
Posts :
411
Posted : Jun 21, 2008 23:10
|
Quote:
|
On 2008-06-21 22:18, qwerty wrote:
Are these for recording/tracking or mixing?
|
|
By "these" you mean monitors?
Recording and tracking is the same thing.
And you don't choose monitors based on if they are good for mixing or recording. Both fall into the same category. But monitors differentiate when it's coming to mixing or mastering monitors. A friend told me once that the biggest mistake we make is that we believe we live, when in reality we are sleeping in the waiting room of life. |
|
|
|
Alex Roudos
IsraTrance Junior Member
Started Topics :
33
Posts :
411
Posted : Jun 22, 2008 00:01
|
Ok, my bad  English is not my first language that's true.
But since it's the first time i hear about recording or mixing speakers, i'd be very interested to read more about that.
Do you have any link to suggest for that matter? And if it's still the same today(i've never read anything regarding this "separation") can you point that out as well? I'm most concerned about what happens today but i'd like to be informed for the past too.
Cheers,
A friend told me once that the biggest mistake we make is that we believe we live, when in reality we are sleeping in the waiting room of life. |
|
|
|
Alex Roudos
IsraTrance Junior Member
Started Topics :
33
Posts :
411
Posted : Jun 22, 2008 00:37
|
qwerty, thank you for taking the time to reply.
But still, you didn't convince me about your original point of view.
I am very aware of the duties of a recording engineer, a mixing engineer and a mastering engineer. And i'm mostly aware of the NS-10s since i was working with them during the 90s. And yes, they were the industry standard for one reason only. Because they sounded like total shit. Which made them perfect for A/Bing on the big studio facilities of the time, simply because if the mix sounded right on them, it would sound great everywhere. But as technology advanced, the NS-10s lost their glorious place from a lot of studios.
Nowadays, high end monitors are more than enough for pro mixing and in some cases for mastering as well.
It would be insane and wouldn't make any sense at all if i for example should need an extra pair of monitors besides my K+H O300s only for recording my artists. In that respect what's the point on paying thousands of euros for monitors that will get only half the job done?
But i would gladly buy a pair of NS-10s for checking my mixes.
A friend told me once that the biggest mistake we make is that we believe we live, when in reality we are sleeping in the waiting room of life. |
|
|
|
Alex Roudos
IsraTrance Junior Member
Started Topics :
33
Posts :
411
Posted : Jun 22, 2008 02:15
|
I totally agree with what you say.
The job of recording and the job of mixing are different things absolutely.
I'm only saying that there are no recording speakers. And if they were they would be the best pair available in any high end studio.
Smaller sets of nearfields make absolute sense as main working nearfields and real world reference nearfields.
Anything else simply doesn't make sense, and i would definitely doubt anyone saying that no matter how pro he would be.
Thankfully, i've never heard or read anything like that in any of the forums that i'm following daily and in which dozens of audio pros, producers, recording, mixing and mastering engineers post and share their knowledge.
A friend told me once that the biggest mistake we make is that we believe we live, when in reality we are sleeping in the waiting room of life. |
|
|
|
Alex Roudos
IsraTrance Junior Member
Started Topics :
33
Posts :
411
Posted : Jun 22, 2008 03:08
|
We're talking about the same thing and we agree about it. I kept on saying what i'm saying because i thought from your first reply that you separated monitors into recording and mixing ones.
If this is not what you meant, then i misunderstood the whole thing.
I never doubted the usefulness of the NS-10s. As i said i worked with them for very long.
But still i'd never ever try to mix on NS-10s again. The HS series is a very good series for their money and better than the NS-10s but they are light years from being high end or pro. And they definitely are not the successor of the NS-10s, except from the aesthetics part.
A friend told me once that the biggest mistake we make is that we believe we live, when in reality we are sleeping in the waiting room of life. |
|
|
|
Alex Roudos
IsraTrance Junior Member
Started Topics :
33
Posts :
411
Posted : Jun 22, 2008 03:31
|
|
Absolutely
A friend told me once that the biggest mistake we make is that we believe we live, when in reality we are sleeping in the waiting room of life. |
|
|
|
bilbobagginz
Started Topics :
8
Posts :
399
Posted : Jun 22, 2008 16:05
|
guys, I come from development related field.
so, basically the mix engineers are the "QA" engineers.
in terms of software/hardware: generally you must run your appplication (be it soft/hard) on ALL the target platforms - misc. computers, misc. hardwares, and misc. manufacturers.
But really tallented designers do it on a limited set of devices, and still get a high quality output.
It usually results out of good understanding of hardware/software design principles, modularity, and clean work practices. Several people even like to call it "intuition".
Probably, the sound engineers also have this proper understanding of sound deformations on those N10s, and other "typically deforming" speakers, so 4-5 monitors/speakers is enough for them to know if the mixdowns sound good or not.
This is where the "art" part comes into this, I guess.
enough water ;-), we're not at the argument clinique.
|
|
|
|
bilbobagginz
Started Topics :
8
Posts :
399
Posted : Jun 22, 2008 16:58
|
I am trying to put the "job of mixing engineer" into a form I could understand clearly. It will make my cooperation more productive.
a developer, an engineer _usually_ gets requirements and produces code/program/device that should meet requirements.
more often freelancers "invent" their own requirements, ideas, and implement them.
QA engineer gets a "raw" black box (code/program/appliance) and he/she must make sure this black box does what it's supposed to do, producing either tasks for original developer (feedback) or fixing it himself. The result is supposed to be "the perfect program".
a sound mixing engineer as I understand gets raw material from the artist, and processes it into a form he/she thinks represents it best.
So, he produces a "mix", a package of all this audio set into 1 stereo/surround audio file, the "perfect mix".
he can also tell the artist to do something (like QA engineer)
I see a big analogy, but maybe it's not the best analogy.
the purpose of it is to make ME understand what the "pro sound guys" are supposed to do (for ME), so I will know and understand their possibilities and limitations, so the work is more productive.
Do you disagree this has something to do with the discussion ?
|
|
|
|
UnderTow
Started Topics :
9
Posts :
1448
Posted : Jun 22, 2008 17:14
|
Quote:
|
On 2008-06-20 03:36:03, bilbobagginz wrote:
<*> how can one calculate a size+power of stereo monitors his room can actually handle ?
|
|
You can't. First there is no direct calculation. It depends on the efficiency of the amp and drivers. One 100 Watt system might sound half or twice as loud as another 100 Watt system.
Secondly a room can "handle" any amount of sound you pump into it (probably until the walls start to crumble). The more relevant question would be how much YOU want. That probably depends on your own taste and how far the speakers are from your ears. Near field monitors need to be less loud than far field monitors.
Also, the more powerful your system CAN be the more likely it is to be linear at normal listening levels so even if you never listen loud, having more power is a benefit.
Quote:
|
<*> Is there a NEED to work at high volumes ? I mean, we all need to hear the sounds. but high volume makes our ears deafened. Do we all want to end up deaf ?
|
|
I listen at normal levels but will occasionally crank the level to see how it sounds when played loud. Just don't do this for too long and take regular breaks to rest your ears. (Continuous noise is more damaging than the occasional loud burst).
Quote:
|
<*> I understand a "good" studio monitor should neither distort the frequency, nor the phase... how can I measure it ?
Is there a tool to see how much phase shift occurs ?
|
|
There are tools but you need an anechoic chamber to test this. Most people don't have these so you have to trust your ears, reviews and the manufacturer's marketing...
Quote:
|
<*> Assuming there's a certain model of monitors I want to buy: is there a SERIOUS difference between one monitors set to another of the SAME model, I mean... how similar is the sound of a particular model ?
|
|
That depends on the build quality... For instance Lipinsky monitors (which have a very good reputation) use standard Vifa drivers. The reason they still sound good is because each tweeter is tested and hand selected for it's qualities. That means that many of these tweeters are NOT selected and thus not good enough. (The hand selecting and testing is part of the reason for the high price).
I think this is probably something most manufacturers don't want to talk too much about. 
Quote:
|
<*> Given a serious release is going to be "tested" on many types of monitors to make sure it sounds OK on any type of speaker.... How important is the "really flat" sound of your home studio monitors, if anyway the track would be remixed at studio, by serious guys - sound engineers...
|
|
This is not standard practise. Most artists I know just produce on their own monitors. They learn to know their monitors and rooms and manage to deliver good mixes this way.
Quote:
|
<*> How is the actual production done: do people bring their mixdown channels, or do they actually run midi/audio sequencers at studios ? I mean... one uses Logic, others Pro Tools, others Cubase, some use Sonar... is there a common denominator ? simple audio channels ?
|
|
Most artists mix the music themselves. In Psytrance it is very rare to have someone else mix your tracks for you. Mixing is an integral part of producing trance music. You need to be good at that as well as at the musical and creative aspects of producing music.
UnderTow |
|
|
|
UnderTow
Started Topics :
9
Posts :
1448
Posted : Jun 22, 2008 17:24
|
Quote:
|
On 2008-06-21 19:49, bilbobagginz wrote:
now, the size of the monitor usually is related to the lowest freq. it can output.
so, big monitor - can't be put in a small room, and thus you can't work on really low bass with a small room. right ?
|
|
Size is only part of the equation. There are ways to make smaller cabinets produce more low frequencies. Bass reflex ports, (folded) transmission lines, active/passive radiators etc etc.
Quote:
|
How different will they be ? very much or not very much ?
|
|
One thing I didn't mention in my previous post is that some speakers need to be "broken in" before they achieve their best sound. Other than that... you just have to get equipment from a reputable manufacturer. Usually there shouldn't be any problems.
UnderTow |
|
|
|
bilbobagginz
Started Topics :
8
Posts :
399
Posted : Jun 22, 2008 18:36
|
Quote:
|
Undertow is very right about the "breaking in"....this is so that the suspension can reach its full elasticity......a good trick for this is to place the speakers facing each other. about a centimeter apart and connect one out of phase....you will be able to turn the volume up, yet because of the phase cancellation the output will be really quiet.
|
|
This is becoming more and more interesting!
I understand a 180 phase shift would result in quite a silent output, but the drives would move the air.
Is this the effect we want to exploit for all the mechanics of the speaker ?
so the rubber and other flexible vibrating/compensating materials get "broken into".
It is also possible to over-stretch them... isn't it ?
|
|
|
|
|
