You only know it's there if you can hear it. You cannot mix by eye.

There cannot be enough said about having a good monitoring SYSTEM (speakers, amps, room, listening location). If you don't have one, mix somewhere else. Or get one.

Working with a monitor system that is lying to you is like trying to paint a picture wearing sunglasses. Don't be surprised if the colors don't match. Don't ever imagine that you will 'get used' to less than stellar monitors and somehow magically be able to make great recordings. This is one of the wondeful internet myths. If it was true, mastering engineers (the guys with the most discriminating ears in the business) wouldn't spend thousands of dollars on small upgrades looking for tiny changes to get that small hair more accurate.

Fortunately, for tracking and basic mixdown we don't have to get quite so crazy. But a full-ranges system in a decient room is a requirement for good work.

Bill

digdug wrote:
Can someone shed a little light on mixing without a sub?

If you have nearfeilds in the under $1000 range, a sub is a good investment. Mixes will contain too much low end information, even if you try to mix by sight and adjust with EQ. Your going to miss a lot of potential transient peaks.

You can pick up a decent sub for under $500. If you're on a budget there are some which go for $300.

Your mixes will improve quite a bit once you know exactly where to roll off and bump the EQ under 150 Hz. You can also learn how to sit the bass and kick in different zones, something you cannot do unless you can hear down there.

How come I see so many people using straight up Event 20/20s (50Hz to 20kHz) Yamaha msp5 (50 Hz ~ 40kHz) or even mackie 824s (39Hz to 22.5kHz)

I'm under the impression that only 20-20kHz is "full range", so why do these composers, sound designers and post production engineers use less that "full range" monitoring?

Am I missing something here?
Currently Ive personaly had to live with mixing with headphones (sony mdr-v600's) and im really needing to get a room reference so im going to need to treat my mixing room and get some monitors...
Im strictly a sound designer

It know my headphones that produce 5-30kHz would not crossover to what I hear on my reference monitors. So wouldnt I just use the heaphones to check my bass and subtle nuances that I might miss in the air? Also it is definately hard to "feel" the bass with headphones obviously but you can hear it...

Even though a speaker is rated for a frequency range doesn't mean it accurately pushes that range.

Mixes in general are all about art and transferablity. The better your room and monitors the more accurate the sound and thus the hope is, that you also have high transferability.

The larger 8 inch speakers in the Mackies, by the way, produce adequate bass. In fact they actually are emphasized in the bass end and some people have a problem with that. You probably would not need a sub with the 824s.

It is a misnomer to assume that a speaker that is rated to 40 Hz. is flat to 40Hz. It well may be down 10dB @40 Hz. It is important to know how the spec measurments were performed too. It is very easy to "fudge" the specs to make them look better to all but the most knowledgeable. There really aren't that many systems that go much lower than 35 Hz. Even sub woofer systems that claim to go to 20 Hz. are usually down at least several db at 20 Hz.

Additionally, a room must have enough volume (at least 250 cubic feet) to support "full range" monitoring. If you are in a room smaller than that, you are better off not pumping the extra low end. A good monitoring room with high ceilngs and plenty of room volume is a must. Like Bill said, "If you don't have one, mix somewhere else.

Well of course theres generaly a slope and small inperfections in the flatness.

I have a 12x12' room with an 8' cieling (pretty square)...
Hows that?
Actully I planned on using using the auralex max-wall enclosure type set up. So Im assuming it really wouldn't matter where I mix anyway. Unless youd suggest I use the room I have to its fullest potential...

I dont plan on using a sub or mid field/mains so Im thinking the HR824 might be a good investment. I'll have to try them out though...

The 824's are great and don't need a sub. And when set-up properly they don't have too much bass...they just need some tweeking. Most people just listen to them in the state they are in and say they have heightened bass...but every pair I've used I had to adjust. Just some insight

The whole concept of a nearfield monitor is to place yourself in a position where you hear direct sound from the speaker eleminating room reflections (RFZ). The 824's have a rear mounted passive radiator that completly defeats this approach. Unless you place them well away from a boundry, you will hear reflections bouncing from the wall behind the speakers. Once again, all that extra low end is pretty much unuseable in a small room. It creates more problems than it solves and contrary to many peoples opinions, I don't believe that any amount of treatments can completely rectify the issues. It's like stuffing 10 lbs. of sh*t into a 5 lb. bag..

This is where I feel the the inaccuracies in the Mackie HR824's comes from.. Perhaps in a larger room they would work well but in that scenareo, why not use a larger speaker like a Tannoy DMT12 that poduces the low end without a passive radiator?

I have to admit that I view all Macke gear with a jaundiced eye.. They seem to be much better IMO, at manufacturing "hyperbole" rather than truely useable pro gear.

I KNOW that a ton of people use the 824's.This is at some point, a matter of taste.A small room has a lot of negative aspects that cant be solved without a lot of math and money.One of the problems I've seen associated with smal rooms, is the mismatching of monitors to the space.While a larger speaker surface area as well as more power(we've GOT to have more Power Scotty) will always be desirable to the ego and the initial listen, over time it can prove to be a detriment.Small accurate monitors in a small environment....LARGE nasty monitors in a large environments....I wouldnt dream of putting the old Urie 803's in my little room....But in a big room with good acoustics, and these things rocked then and rock now. For most people in their basement/bedroom/garage studios, a really good set of nearfields is all that is needed.....and a set of something to reference to...I still like the 624's better for this application....and really I like em a LOT better than the 824's...They seem so much more accurate and tight.I cant stand the sloppiness that a rear passive radiator gives....I had a set in my living room and I was constantly fidlin with the bass on almost every recording to try to dial it in.

Well im in a small room. (11'x11'x8')

I need an accurate active monitor for the space that just translates correctly.

I will obviously prep the room as much as possible. (unless I use the MAX WALL enclosure type setup, this would be prefered because I may have to do work in different locations)

I thank you all for your replies so far.

Oh yeah BTW, I dont want to waste your time on any questions that can be answered via a quick search. Its hard deciding on something that doesnt match the personal situation.

Ill give you a run down of the situation: (some are repeats)

Room Size: 11x11x8'
Acoustic treatment: yet to be decided.
Type of work: Sound FX Design strictly.

Any other questions you could ask me that would help you help me, just shoot. :)

Bill Park wrote: mastering engineers (the guys with the most discriminating ears in the business)

that's debatable.

..but good advice anyway.