[brooce]

Quote:

Originally Posted by FourierMakesFunk /img/forum/go_quote.gif You don't want a monitor to sound nice, you want it to be accurate (see: NS10s). Some of the best studio monitors sound horrible for listening to music, but they are honest. V6s are accurate enough to get the job done (not in terms of frequency response, but you learn to compensate for that by getting to know how things should sound on them, even if it isn't that enjoyable sounding on them, you can get them to translate well enough to other systems), as are HD 280s.]

See, I don't get this notion of 'accuracy' - because to me they are anything but accurate-sounding. They make my ears beg for mercy, the MDR-V6 do. NS10s are the MDR-V6 of the speaker world. For some reason, lots of studios have stuck with them. The mind boggles. None of these are 'honest'-sounding.

I wouldn't use the HD 280 for monitoring if a gun was to my head, either. Talk about boring, inaccurate and uncomfortable all rolled into one. If it's all about knowing how something should sound and compensating for it, you can buy ANY crap you want and start using that. Because that's exactly what is happening here.

 

[Acix]

For some the hps it's just to check out the mix, like it was for me in the 80's. With the new HD/resolution standards the better hps you have, the better creative mix you can get.

 

[Duckman]

A word regarding the M-50: it has a pretty obvious bass hump which, IMO renders it less than perfect for mixing. The DT250 sounds more balanced and natural to me. Having said that, the 250 is also slightly warm in the bass and a tad rolled off in the highs.

 

[andy43]

I don't really understand the idea of if a monitor has too prominent of something (bass, treble, etc.) then the mix will be shy of that frequency. I mean, wouldn't it just matter what sounds flat to the persons ear mixing? For example, if a boosted bass is flat to my ears, shouldn't I get a headphone with already boosted bass that way I don't push it in the mix? It would still be the same as if I had made the bass shy with a technically flat headphone.

 

[FourierMakesFunk]

Quote:

Originally Posted by andy43 /img/forum/go_quote.gif I don't really understand the idea of if a monitor has too prominent of something (bass, treble, etc.) then the mix will be shy of that frequency. I mean, wouldn't it just matter what sounds flat to the persons ear mixing? For example, if a boosted bass is flat to my ears, shouldn't I get a headphone with already boosted bass that way I don't push it in the mix? It would still be the same as if I had made the bass shy with a technically flat headphone.

This is why you listen to music you know really well (and that's mixed/mastered well) and really take some time with whatever you get. The whole "bass heavy speakers means bass shy mixes" only works if you are mixing to get a neutral sound on bass heavy drivers. If you take some time with what you get, you can learn how much bass is the right amount along with the rest of the spectrum, no matter how off the FR chart is (with-in reason).

Remember, monitors (as opposed to reference monitors or hi-fi equipment) aren't supposed to show you how things should be, they tell you how things are.

Neutral frequency response drivers help, but a good mix they do not make. Your ears are what tell you what's going on, so once trained, your ears will know how to get the right sound with what your listening with. Mind you with distortion, phase delays, etc, it gets more complicated and is the reason why you want good equipment that is accurate (see my next post), but as a general rule of thumb it holds true the it's your ears that control the mix here, not the equipment.

 

[FourierMakesFunk]

Quote:

Originally Posted by brooce /img/forum/go_quote.gif See, I don't get this notion of 'accuracy' - because to me they are anything but accurate-sounding. They make my ears beg for mercy, the MDR-V6 do. NS10s are the MDR-V6 of the speaker world. For some reason, lots of studios have stuck with them. The mind boggles. None of these are 'honest'-sounding. I wouldn't use the HD 280 for monitoring if a gun was to my head, either. Talk about boring, inaccurate and uncomfortable all rolled into one. If it's all about knowing how something should sound and compensating for it, you can buy ANY crap you want and start using that. Because that's exactly what is happening here.

HD 280's aren't great for mixing, then again, all these cheap headphones (or all headphones) aren't. The HD 280's tend to be used (like almost all headphones in the world of audio engineering) for musicians to monitor things while recording or for quickly checking things. The HD 280's are well regarded since they are rugged, have great isolation, and are cheap. People you record break things... a lot. You want cheap, and they don't care about the fine points of the mix, they just want to hear things. For mixing most people want something they can throw in a bag and can replace with ease.

Accuracy with monitors is about if they hide things from you. Whether they are boring or harsh (though if they are too harsh the things will be a bear to work with for hours), you want to not get a really distorted sound and have something you can really hear the mix with. Even if the FR is off, if you can get a good mix on them, they are good monitors for you. NS10s sound horrible, but people spent years with them and know how to get a mix sounding good, and in some ways they approximate consumer systems while offering fidelity (like Auratones).

Talking too seriously about headphones for mixing is a bit silly though. Frequency response is only one part of a very large equation when talking about the characteristics of transducers and headphones, though wonderful for listening to audio for fun and useful for mixing when used correctly in conjunction with speakers, are just bad at representing a lot of things you need to hear to get a good mix. That isn't an opinion, it's just physics.

Anything you get will pale in comparison to real monitors (but lugging monitors around every day stinks, which I can sadly say from experience), so just find something you like out of the 'phones mentioned here and learn to use them.

Oh, and remember to have fun!

 

[lejaz]

Quote:

Originally Posted by andy43 /img/forum/go_quote.gif I don't really understand the idea of if a monitor has too prominent of something (bass, treble, etc.) then the mix will be shy of that frequency. I mean, wouldn't it just matter what sounds flat to the persons ear mixing? For example, if a boosted bass is flat to my ears, shouldn't I get a headphone with already boosted bass that way I don't push it in the mix? It would still be the same as if I had made the bass shy with a technically flat headphone.

Interesting point. I never looked at it that way before. ARe you saying that a boosted bass sounds 'flat' to your ears, or that it sounds good. If what you're really saying is that it sounds 'good', then your song won't sound 'good' when you play it over more neutral systems. I guess it comes down to whether you trust your own ears or not. If you trust your ears to make a good sounding mix, then go for a neutral headphone. That's how I see it anyway. YMMV

Duckman: I agree about the dt250. It's a bit warm and boosted in the lows, but nothing close to some other 'studio' headphones I've tried. I removed the foam pad and replaced it with a thin piece of cloth. That brings the highs forward to the point that they're at the level of the 240DF....not rolled off anymore.

 

[andy43]

Quote:

Originally Posted by FourierMakesFunk /img/forum/go_quote.gif Talking too seriously about headphones for mixing is a bit silly though. Frequency response is only one part of a very large equation when talking about the characteristics of transducers and headphones, though wonderful for listening to audio for fun and useful for mixing when used correctly in conjunction with speakers, are just bad at representing a lot of things you need to hear to get a good mix. That isn't an opinion, it's just physics.

That's part of the reason I started this thread. I was curious about what made a monitor better than a headphone. It can't be just the FR because some headphones can get close to getting that part right. I figured if I know what makes a monitor better than a headphone, then I could look for a headphone with traits similar to a monitor (for example soundstage, imaging, etc.).

 

[Acix]

Quote:

Originally Posted by lejaz /img/forum/go_quote.gif Interesting point. I never looked at it that way before. ARe you saying that a boosted bass sounds 'flat' to your ears, or that it sounds good. If what you're really saying is that it sounds 'good', then your song won't sound 'good' when you play it over more neutral systems. I guess it comes down to whether you trust your own ears or not. If you trust your ears to make a good sounding mix, then go for a neutral headphone. That's how I see it anyway. YMMV.

Agree....but still, to trust your ears come from experience and knowledge of years, about what you're doing and what you're hearing in the studio, it's a process of learning. I can recommend for the learning and training process to use two different hps. One with a boost on the bass, and the other one flat monitor hps. Some studios offer to the client 2 to 3 different sets of speakers for the same resent.

You can trust and learn almost any hps, the question is what hps offer you the most for your needs. The only two hps that I fund on the mastering level are the K701/2 and the HD-800.

 

[FourierMakesFunk]

Quote:

Originally Posted by andy43 /img/forum/go_quote.gif That's part of the reason I started this thread. I was curious about what made a monitor better than a headphone. It can't be just the FR because some headphones can get close to getting that part right. I figured if I know what makes a monitor better than a headphone, then I could look for a headphone with traits similar to a monitor (for example soundstage, imaging, etc.).

Others can tell you more and better information, but in a nut shell:

Remember that with headphones each ear only hears one side. With speakers you hear each monitor in both ears (with a slight delay/change in sound due to distance and one ear gets the sound coming around your head which filters the sound). Also the drivers are right against your ears only playing to them with a headphone, while with speakers the sound is hitting your ears/head at an angle. Your brain is designed to process sound coming at you like this.

Yes there are pieces of gear and software that simulate this for headphones, but I've yet to hear/hear of one that really gets it right.

Also remember that the size/number of drivers, distance from you, effects of room ambience, etc all are aspects of speakers that are hard or some cases impossible to produce with headphones. Good monitoring systems have subs which reproduce sub frequencies you feel, and since headphones are only moving the air by your ears, you won't get that real rumble.


If you ever get a chance to visit a studio or a really good hi-fi system, listen to some well recorded/mixed/mastered stuff on their system. Then try some high end headphones. Headphones are great and offer a really special experience (and often times make fine details more apparent (the drivers being so small, light and so close to your ears is an advantage for some things)), but they just won't have the same scope as a really nice system.


PS Acix, just wanted to say I really like the stuff on your websites and your posts.

 

[Acix]

Thanks FourierMakesFunk.

 

[andy43]

Thanks guys, you've been a big help to me. I guess the best thing I can do is to try out some headphones mentioned and see which one sounds the most neutral to my ears. Thanks once again!