Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › Learning more about the science of sound
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Learning more about the science of sound - Page 24

post #346 of 395

I think that being able to accurately simulate the soundstage of speakers while using headphones, without also adding a room's acoustics as well (which, frankly, often make a bigger difference to the sound than the speakers themselves) would be a golden compromise for production purposes. I don't want to add room sound to my headphones. It would defeat the main purpose of me using this device.

post #347 of 395

What genre of music do you listen to?

post #348 of 395
Quote:
Originally Posted by uchihaitachi View Post

I don't know if it is just me but I just can't see just how headphones or iems or etc can ever provide a more rewarding experience than full speaker set ups.... 

They can't. But some people have grouchy neighbors. (Thankfully not me!)
post #349 of 395
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tus-Chan View Post

I think that being able to accurately simulate the soundstage of speakers while using headphones, without also adding a room's acoustics as well (which, frankly, often make a bigger difference to the sound than the speakers themselves) would be a golden compromise for production purposes.

What do you mean by production purposes?
post #350 of 395
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigshot View Post


What do you mean by production purposes?

Maybe for mixing that needs to be done outside a studio?

post #351 of 395
Mixing is always done on speakers. Headphones don't always give an accurate idea of dynamics and balance.
post #352 of 395
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigshot View Post

Mixing is always done on speakers. Headphones don't always give an accurate idea of dynamics and balance.

Isn't the realiser a solution if you are on the move? 

post #353 of 395
It would have to be calibrated to precisely match the mixing stage. I don't know if that's possible, because I've never used one.

But there would still be the problem of dynamics. Headphones can suck up loud peaks that speakers blast out.
post #354 of 395
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigshot View Post

It would have to be calibrated to precisely match the mixing stage. I don't know if that's possible, because I've never used one.

But there would still be the problem of dynamics. Headphones can suck up loud peaks that speakers blast out.

 

 

They claim it's possible, but calibrated for the individual.  If you were mixing with a producer present, he'd need his own unit.  

 

Theoretically, you should end up with a more or less loudspeaker-ish environment with your headphones, the dynamic issues may not be an issue, or as much an issue as trying to mix on headphones without the processor.  

 

Sure wish I could try this thing!

post #355 of 395

I hear that you can also use it without any compromises via IEMs rather than headphones as well!

post #356 of 395

You might know the answer Jaddie... I've always wondered why it is that you can get peak volume levels higher with headphones than with speakers. Is it about pushing the air in the room or filling in the space? I know when I would try to balance with headphones, I'd end up with big spikes that I didn't know were there when I listened back on speakers. I finally gave up trying to mix with headphones and only used them for tracking.

post #357 of 395
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigshot View Post

You might know the answer Jaddie... I've always wondered why it is that you can get peak volume levels higher with headphones than with speakers. Is it about pushing the air in the room or filling in the space? I know when I would try to balance with headphones, I'd end up with big spikes that I didn't know were there when I listened back on speakers. I finally gave up trying to mix with headphones and only used them for tracking.

The close coupling of headphones and IEMs to the ear presents a distorted reality in several ways.  I bypasses spacial hearing, and the perception of a real acoustic space.  I bypasses much of what we use as normal references to volume, some of which is room noise, our own speech and speech of others, essentially anything that helps us to place sound in context.  Then our hearing accommodates to the new artificial sterile environment and we've lost a real reference to acoustic space and volume.  The next thing we know, we're listening too loud, and misjudging high peaks, stereo placement, reverb, EQ, pretty much everything.  We need a sense of an acoustic space to keep things in perspective.

 

Yes, live mixes I've done on cans and recorded have always been disappointing.  I did a whole series of live broadcasts back in the mid 1990s where I could only mix on headphones because my mix position was essentially on stage.  All together I was doing 6 separate mixes: FOH, stage monitor, IEM monitor for two different musicians, a mono mix for broadcast and a stereo mix to tape.  I got the FOH sounding good, and got enough stage monitor and IEM to satisfy the performers, and my basic broadcast mix was OK in mono, but when I listened to  my stereo mix recorded on digital tape and played on speakers, it sucked big time.  I'd judged the FOH by running out into the audience, judged the monitor and IEM based on musician comment and request, the station gave me input on the mono broadcast mix over the IFB, but I was on my own for the stereo mix.  Pretty much the way of things.   

 

Mackie 1604-VLZ is a marvelous mixer, though!

post #358 of 395
I once did a mix that was a fiasco because the musician had provided us with mono music cues in stereo with the two channels out of phase to each other. The sound editor was working with headphones and thought the tracks were in simulated stereo and put them in the Final Cut timeline like that. We mixed in stereo, got all the way through and did a mono playback and all of a sudden the music was totally gone. It was all through the show and there was no time to correct all of them, so it went to air with a few places where if you had that simulated rear channel thing on your TV set, all of a sudden the music got crazy loud.
post #359 of 395
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigshot View Post

I once did a mix that was a fiasco because the musician had provided us with mono music cues in stereo with the two channels out of phase to each other. The sound editor was working with headphones and thought the tracks were in simulated stereo and put them in the Final Cut timeline like that. We mixed in stereo, got all the way through and did a mono playback and all of a sudden the music was totally gone. It was all through the show and there was no time to correct all of them, so it went to air with a few places where if you had that simulated rear channel thing on your TV set, all of a sudden the music got crazy loud.

Too bad too.  There's a quick fix for that in FCP.  I just ran into the same thing, had to re-cut a YouTube video (yeah, I know, mundane), the original had a phase flip in the intro voiceover, but the rest was fine.  There was no real stereo except a bit of room tone that was in the way anyway, so I simply reduced the R channel of the entire mix to zero, panned the left to center, done.

post #360 of 395
The problem was, the director had already spent three days mixing the show with the phase cancellation. It was a REALLY bad mixing engineer. He should have noticed it, but the powers that be were trying to save money and it bit them in the ass.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Sound Science
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › Learning more about the science of sound