I'm a bass lover, having a sub that I boost to my liking is the only way to avoid mixing it too loud. I could train myself to compensate and mix without it, but I'm old and lazy ;)
Also, my customers like it more and they are less insecure to hear the mix with it...

Without!

No sub here although my older system had one. That set of monitors has become the primary pair in the 7.1 in the living room. I don't need a sub with the Sundholm 6.5's. Pretty flat all the way to 31hz

I'll use one if its there on near fields for hip hop. Not sure if the low drivers on the 813cs count as subs per say. I would mix with one all the time if I could! No subs here on the hr8s at home, yet....

I don't think I really need one...the room aint big enough.

I use the sub to check things low but mostly use mains as mixing with the subs unless you have a tuned room can mess up everything in the mids to low mids.

Depends on where I am. At home I can and usually do, but it's easily switchable to mains only. There isn't one at the studio.

Great responses... so right now, the results are sitting at 50/50. That's higher than I expected - meaning that more of you cats are using subs ( either all the time or occasionally) than I would have thought.

I think the first condition is how well your monitors translate bass frequencies in your room.
Other than that, it's a preference thing I guess.

I'm just asking myself, for a long work, will a Sub create more ear fatigue ?

pcrecord, post: 433475, member: 46460 wrote: I'm just asking myself, for a long work, will a Sub create more ear fatigue ?

I'm not sure about a sub creating fatigue, Marco... I suppose it's possible; depending on the volume levels, any extended length of time listening to music on any system will eventually tire your ears out - other factors at play would also be listening position, and the room, too, of course.

In my case, the frequencies that usually wipe me out faster than anything are those upper mids and lower high's; 1k to 4k can render me to be just a little more functional than a turnip - and pretty quickly, too ... if they're played at loud enough levels for a certain length of time... like at 85db, which is the "suggested" Fletcher Munson Curve... Brother, I can tell you from personal experiences, that if I were to mix at 85db on NS10's, I'd likely be toast within an hour or so.

There have been some other speakers I've mixed on over the years that have had bumps in those areas; but as previously mentioned, the worst offenders were the original NS10's. They were pretty tiring for me.
The NS10M Studio Models, which came later, and which I believe had transistors wired into the tweeters to lessen those freq's, ( ? ) were a little better, but I still thought that they were kinda peaky.
It was around that time that Bob Clearmountain started using his now infamous "tissue paper over the tweeters" trick.

Another thing I found out over time - when I had the occasion to mix on some of the Tannoy models - especially the ones with the coaxial tweeters - I always found them to sound strange, in a "phasey" sort of way... it's difficult to describe, but they would tend to fatigue me as well. I forget the model number(s) of the ones I'm thinking of, but they were a very "odd" sounding speaker to mix through, ( at least they sounded that way to me, anyway ) .

The smoothest sounding monitors I ever mixed through were JBL's - in particular, 4408's, which I still have and use occasionally... most often when I'm doing a lot of arranging of a song, like adding strings or brass sections, etc.
If I know that I'm gonna be at it for awhile, I'll start with the JBL's and then switch over to NS10M's or Monitor One passives to mix through.

I remember coming off 8-hour mix sessions with those JBL's, and not really being fatigued much at all ... they were smooth sounding speakers, but, as we know, "smooth" doesn't always translate the way we'd like it to. ;)

-d.

I must admit I have been thinking whether it would be a good investment in adding a sub to my KRK's...I know they do a sub for them in that range.
Another consideration are the NS10Ms' Donny mentions above as a second set as Iv'e been toying with that idea also.

Only last week I was looking on ebay at them (NS10Ms'), they were ranging from $500 USD for a pair with stained yellowed drivers, to a nice clean pair with a little cosmetic wear that went for around $980USD (apparently the current owner had them for 12 years and bought them from another studio 2nd hand)

There was a pair that were really clean that the starting bid was $1500USD, :eek: ...and a few sets out of Japan that were $500-$600USD.

I know its a gamble buying a second hand pair, but for the rap they get, what more can a poor boy do???:(

- Maybe I should put it to a poll...if you were in my shoes considering a 2nd set of nearfields would you buy a second hand set of NS10Ms' in good condition given their reputation, or buy a new set of the HS series Yamaha monitors??? (taking into account I'd need to buy an amp too to power the NS10Ms')...OR would you expand on your current set with a sub first???:confused:

Edit - Sh*t Donny, sorry mate, not trying to hijack your OP ;)

Sean G, post: 433478, member: 49362 wrote: if you were in my shoes considering a 2nd set of nearfields would you buy a second hand set of NS10Ms' in good condition given their reputation, or buy a new set of the HS series Yamaha monitors???

I can't say, Sean - there are too many variables, not the least of which is what you personally prefer. I'm sure you've heard the saying "use NS10's and the mix will sound good everywhere..." there's gotta be something there, I don't believe that they've become the studio standard that they have because they aren't able to translate well.

There are widely varying opinions... from "They're brutally unflattering to mixes, but that's their job. But never, ever use them as a sole pair of monitors. Just a cross check..." to ... "I totally hated the NS10s initially and wondered why they were an industry standard, until I checked back some mixes on a pair. All the problems instantly jumped out..." to ... "NS10s were bloody brilliant, I can't believe Yamaha stopped making them."

source:
http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/sep08/articles/yamahans10.htm

Some swear by them, and won't mix on anything else. Others loathe them and won't touch them. And, still others also loathe them - but use them anyway - because of their ability to translate a mix so well to other systems.

It's also worth noting that NS10's were originally designed as a bookshelf hi-fi home speaker. I don't believe that Akira Nakamura - the designer of the Yamaha NS10's - had any idea of just how popular they would eventually become in recording studios all over the world.

Engineers like Nigel Jopson, ( Tony Carey, Whitney Houston) Bill Scheniman (Roxy Music, Chic' and the now globally-accepted first engineer to bring a pair with him to the The States), Greg Ladanyi ( Jackson Browne, Warren Zevon) all used them, and then eventually Bob Clearmountain started mixing through them - I think it's safe say that he was the one responsible for making them famous, and becoming a staple at many pro-level American recording studios.

From there, they steamrolled into almost every studio, of every level and size, and have been a mixing monitor "standard" since. They've been used to mix hundreds ( maybe even thousands) of well-known songs, and they obviously do have something "special" about them that makes people want to use them... even people who come right out and say they don't like them still use them, so I think that pretty much says it all.

I recognize their use, and I've done many, many mix sessions on them myself. I still check mixes through mine. Hundreds of engineers on all professional levels have done the same. There's no doubt that they serve their purpose.

But I still hate 'em. LOL

;)

d.

DonnyThompson, post: 433480, member: 46114 wrote: But I still hate 'em. LOL

Yeah, there seems to be a love / hate relationship with them, :D but I don't think owning a pair would be a detrimental thing considering the demand.

But then again, I'm not looking to them as an investment to appreciate in value, although I'm sure they would thanks to the old theory of supply & demand, but rather as an investment in the quality of my mixes, which has a touch of irony considering those out there who hate the sound of them.

DonnyThompson, post: 433480, member: 46114 wrote: even people who come right out and say they don't like them still use them, so I think that pretty much says it all.

You hit the nail on the head there...

DonnyThompson, post: 433480, member: 46114 wrote: because of their ability to translate a mix so well to other systems.

and there also...it seems to be the consensus with the NS10M's

I suppose its worth a consideration, if I don't like them, its not like a new set of (insert brand x here) that would most likely lose value once you took them out of the box.

Even if the ones Iv'e seen on Epay are achieving the prices they are for stained, knocked-about pairs I've seen to date I suppose its not what they are worth dollar wise, but what someone is willing to pay for them.

Anyhoo...back to sub woofers...:whistle:

The NS10 are legend for certain..
I got a Yamaha HS8 pair and like them very much.. I'm sur they are not of high caliber like the Focals or others ... but for the price, it does the job I need..
I'm using them too near of the wall so the bass response is disminished. A fair reason why I like using them with a sub ;)
Yamaha says they should be placed 1.5meter or more from side and rear wall to let the rear port project low frequencies more accuratly

Sean G, post: 433478, member: 49362 wrote: I must admit I have been thinking whether it would be a good investment in adding a sub to my KRK's...I know they do a sub for them in that range.
Another consideration are the NS10Ms' Donny mentions above as a second set as Iv'e been toying with that idea also.

Only last week I was looking on ebay at them (NS10Ms'), they were ranging from $500 USD for a pair with stained yellowed drivers, to a nice clean pair with a little cosmetic wear that went for around $980USD (apparently the current owner had them for 12 years and bought them from another studio 2nd hand)

There was a pair that were really clean that the starting bid was $1500USD, :eek: ...and a few sets out of Japan that were $500-$600USD.

I know its a gamble buying a second hand pair, but for the rap they get, what more can a poor boy do???:(

- Maybe I should put it to a poll...if you were in my shoes considering a 2nd set of nearfields would you buy a second hand set of NS10Ms' in good condition given their reputation, or buy a new set of the HS series Yamaha monitors??? (taking into account I'd need to buy an amp too to power the NS10Ms')...OR would you expand on your current set with a sub first???:confused:

Edit - Sh*t Donny, sorry mate, not trying to hijack your OP ;)

So what kinda amp you thinking?

The thing with ns-10s is they vary so much in how much original ns-10 your getting. So prices vary, and sight unseen, I'd be weary, especially without a trained eye for components Ect.

They are useful for a b reference or car check. I would grab a pair only after I had a killer accurate full range system. Any boom box or car, or horror tone, will do just as well as the beloved no-10, at their purpose, to expose deficient that would show up in a typical listening field. Restaurant, tv, mini buds, Ect.

It's a simple means of hearing the lowest common denominator (that's practical) of your mixes. Them and a mono button will show you just were your vocals and bass honks. For me.

I only hold so much weight in these junk speaker tests from the control room, which is a tuned special edition listening situation. It's the inverse effect of people putting 'studio monitors' in an regular room. Which is why something like the car or the break room stereo, will always win, int that regard. The environment and speakers are one with the other.

Despite rules of thumb from the BBC, most good control rooms don't represent the acoustics of an average living room, and an average living room never sounds like a good control room.

Krks sound the most like ns-10s than other other monitor I've heard in the sub $1k range. The have a very forward upper mid, in a similar vein.

The HSMs aren't the best option for a second pair of near fields imo. I bought a pair and bought them back after comparing the other two speakers sets I picked up. The HSMs are a decent first set opinion the $500/pair category and an improvement of the krks, but not by much. The HS sub is nice but not overly powerful but blended in nicely when I used them with one studios Meyers (one of the studios I frequently work at). If your mixing in 7.1/5.1 then the HSMs fill a reasonable hole in the price point. My boss loves his HSMs, better than the quested he had for a while. (Questeds are 5k a pair)

I'd take the alesesis monitor one (powered) over any of them just fine. ive like those for a long time, they are on my list for a B set of near fields.

For me, id forget the ns-10s, sell the krks, get a pair of small yard sale speakers for free, and put that into a serious near field monitor. How big depends on your rooms size and acoustics. But there's no speaker that grestly exceeds its price point. Ns-10s and their acossiated amplifiers, included. There cool for nostalgia and do what they do well, but there's cheaper 'suck' out there. Crappy speakers are everywhere and easily attainable.

It's a nice set in a nice room that's more difficult to attain, therefore imo, any 'investment' should be to improve the overall sonics and experience. Do your real world checks in the real world.

My flow is the mains as often as possible, very softly, becasue I like full range, and find I tired too quickly up in the 80db range. Then it goes to the car, then the home on the Bose radio, and my surround (when it's not boxed)

By the time I was able to really work on ns 10s I found them to be useful but not anything I'd run out and buy. More nostalgia, than necessity. They're not really as bad as people made them out to be, but didnt reveal anything any other cheap speaker would. They're averege in every sense, except price.

Give me 1 pair of really nice speakers, instead of 2 pairs of mediocre ones all day. The cost of a used set of krks, a pair of ns-10ms (original cones), and a decent amp, gets you in the ballpark of commercial level monitors.

kmetal, post: 433491, member: 37533 wrote: So what kinda amp you thinking?

Thats another consideration altogether...I've been looking at some older threads here on RO regarding NS10Ms' and what others recommend to power them, as I'm only looking for a second set to A/B mixes maybe an older Sansui stereo amp or Yamaha????

Thanks for your thoughts on the KRKs', mine are series 2 / 5 inch, the white cabs with the white drivers. Like the NS10's they seem to have those that like them and those that hate them. I'm pretty used to how they sound now and things are translating well to the car & phone balance wise, or better than things were before, even with the basic treatment in the room of some diffusion and trapping.

I have also come to the realisation that mixing at more subtle levels in the room helps my mixes...it doesn't have to be over the top volume wise and the consequences that come with it bouncing all over the room and back into my face, ears, back of my head etc. ;)

- Any suggestions kmetal on what you think would be a good amp if I was to give serious consideration to the NS10Ms'?

- An older Crown amp seems to get a few mentions here on the threads regarding NS10Ms' also...don't know if I could even get one here in Oz, also taking into account we run everything here at 240V AC not 100V.

Edit - I have an older Nikko Beta 20 and Alpha 220 pre-amp & amp here, the pre-amp has the stereo / mono switch on it, but I fear it may be too big for a set of NS10M's???- correct me if I'm wrong. Its an old workhorse that Iv'e had for the best part of 20 years, I just dusted it off and racked it the other day for sh*ts & giggles...still works like a bandit on a dark night.(y)

Again, apologies to Donny the OP for taking this thread away from the original discussion on subs :oops:

Sean G, post: 433492, member: 49362 wrote: Any suggestions kmetal on what you think would be a good amp if I was to give serious consideration to the NS10Ms'?

Hafler or crest, would probably be what I was after for an ns-10. Anytime you get into 'older is better' things, you have to me sure the integral parts to that bitterness is underneath the hood still.

I'd really be surprised if the ns-10 show you much, if anything the krks don't already show you. usually 5" speakers are use in conjunction with an 8" or larger near/mid field monitor, not one of very similar proportions and power.

kmetal, post: 433494, member: 37533 wrote: usually 5" speakers are use in conjunction with an 8" or larger near/mid field monitor, not one of very similar proportions and power.

Thats a really good consideration I hadn't taken into account...thanks Kyle.

- Thats' what I love about RO...the right advice from the right people who are happy to share their knowledge & experience with others.

At this time, my best monitor - amp combo is an ancient pair of Monitor Ones (passives) and a Hafler Trans-nova. I also have an old Crown amp that I'll use with NS10's - occasionally - when a client prefers to use the NS10's, but I don't feel that they help me turn out mixes that are any better or more translationally accurate than what I get with the M1's and the Hafler. ( My room is treated, BTW)

Kyle makes good points, in that putting NS10's into an "average" type of room - meaning untreated - will probably just end up causing you more headaches ( literally, too if you mix too long on them) than a good monitor would.

Here's the thing Sean, you mentioned this:

Sean G, post: 433492, member: 49362 wrote: on the KRKs', mine are series 2 / 5 inch, the white cabs with the white drivers. Like the NS10's they seem to have those that like them and those that hate them. I'm pretty used to how they sound now and things are translating well to the car & phone balance wise, or better than things were before, even with the basic treatment in the room of some diffusion and trapping.

So if your mixes are already translating well, then why change anything?

It's been my experience that success with monitors generally comes from getting used to the ones you have, in the room that you are in, and through a period of acclimation and adjustment, finding out how the mixes sound outside of your environment, adjusting as necessary, etc., and you eventually get used to using what you have, and soon end up turning out mixes that work well pretty much everywhere. This doesn't always happen, of course... if your room is skewed enough then you'll just end up endlessly chasing your tail, but at that point, any monitor - cheap or expensive - won't really do you much good.

I feel that if you started mixing on NS10's at this juncture, that it might end up being a sort of diminishing return for you; and that you'd have to take the time to get used to them; which would be fine if you were having problems with mixes translating, but from what you said, you're currently happy with the translational nature of what you have... so why fix that which isn't broken? ;)

DonnyThompson, post: 433500, member: 46114 wrote: you're currently happy with the translational nature of what you have... so why fix that which isn't broken? ;)

Thats a valid point, and considering also that introducing a new set into the mix is adding another variable to the equation.
I suppose the idea of another set of monitors is appealing for the A/B scenario to check how things translate on those as a reference as well, using them as a second set not as a main set.
I actually have an old set of Sony APM-100 @ 35W bookshelf speakers I have been toying with hooking up to see how they sound, just for curiosities sake.

There the ones with the square woofers and tweeters from the 80s'...roughly the same dimensions as my KRKs'...same wattage too.
But from memory they always sounded a little tinny and under powered running through an old cheap-ass 3-in-1 stereo I last ran them through.

- would be an interesting exercise...I wonder if anyone out there has ever tried using these as monitors at any stage?

I'm not saying that I'm against having a "B" pair of monitors - lots of guys do - but in the end, if you are able to get mixes that translate well with your "A" pair of monitors, then it seems a bit pointless to even concern yourself with a "B" pair.
Unless you would start mixing in surround, or for a particular media ( like AM Radio, etc.,) where it would be beneficial to maybe have a pair of Auratones, or in the case of surround, having a surround system to monitor with - but if you're going to do that, you'll also want to be looking into a monitor controller as well - and good controllers aren't cheap, and cheap controllers could make things even worse - so in those scenarios, your expense wouldn't stop at just the speakers. ;)

Truthfully Sean, if you have money burning a hole in your pocket - which is enough to pay for the ridiculously over-priced used NS10's that I see on the market, I would put that money towards a good monitor instead - something that would help refine your translational accuracy even further, without frying your ears. I certainly wouldn't use that $800 you have to buy used NS10's.

I would be looking at used models of the following instead:

http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/jan15/articles/focal-alpha65.htm

http://www.sweetwater.com/store/detail/BMCompmkIII

PS... these would replace your current A monitors, at which point you could then use what you have now as your B monitors.

DonnyThompson, post: 433503, member: 46114 wrote: Truthfully Sean, if you have money burning a hole in your pocket - which is enough to pay for the ridiculously over-priced used NS10's that I see on the market, I would put that money towards a good monitor instead - something that would help refine your translational accuracy even further, without frying your ears. I certainly wouldn't use that $800 you have to buy used NS10's.

Its not a case of money burning a hole in my pocket...more of looking at options to further improve my chain...even if it is only one piece of the puzzle at a time.
I agree with the notion of looking at a better set of monitors and use the KRKs' as a second set as a good starting point as opposed to used NS10Ms'...I suppose what got me thinking those as an option was the fact they are "the standard", but even thats subjective to opinion.
I also see picking up a copy of Rods' book as a guide to further improve the room I have to work with as another piece of the puzzle.

Good speakers and a good room are important, but I think familiarity with them is especially important. My home system and room are okay but I listen to everything on it including CD, TV, FM, DVD, PC. My computers are connected by SPDIF. With a couple of button pushes I can listen to any of those sources, in 2.0, 2.1 or 5.1. I generally listen to music in 2.1 and watch TV and DVDs in 5.1.

It also helps to walk the room. Learn what your room does in different places. Often there's a spot or two where you can hear all the stuff that you don't hear sitting at the console (or mouse and keyboard these days). Play lots of familiar pro mixes and walk the room a lot, learn how they sound on your system.

DonnyThompson, post: 433500, member: 46114 wrote: It's been my experience that success with monitors generally comes from getting used to the ones you have, in the room that you are in, and through a period of acclimation and adjustment, finding out how the mixes sound outside of your environment, adjusting as necessary, etc., and you eventually get used to using what you have, and soon end up turning out mixes that work well pretty much everywhere.

Yup.

Sean you mention you want to improve your chain, what else ya got? How's your room (size/treatment). What are you hearing as weaknesses?

My current chain is into a Presonus 1818VSL ->dual quad core Dell XPS 420 PC 64-bit with 8 gig of RAM-> Studio One 3, -> KRK Rokit 5's & AKG-Q701's (mix) / KRK KNS-8400 (track)...
Mics are Rode NT-1, Rode M1 & a couple of Shure SM58s',...

I also have a TC Helicon Voicelive 3 Rack that I run inline before the Presonus if I want to add any vox effects.

I upgraded to the Presonus recently but previously I was running into my Allen & Health Zed 12FX then into the PC via USB, its a good little desk but it was only 16-bit.

I'll be the first to admit my gear is nowhere near pro and is a pretty basic set-up as I've come late into the game recording wise, with the view to cut my teeth first then upgrade as the budget allows.

I also run a Roland Duo Capture EX ->HP laptop ->Studio One 3 as a little mobile rig when I travel a few hours up the coast to play with a few friends to capture mostly live tracks via the 2 channel Roland.

Treatment wise the room has some basic diffusion and corner trapping. Iv'e now got a fairly good idea of how the monitors sound in the room I'm in and the mixes translate pretty well to other devices, car etc. I have not done a great deal of tracking in this room to date so time will tell.
The mixes sound OK, I know that they won't sound like a pro-studio due to the gear & room limitations and I'm not going to kid myself there, but maybe getting them to sound a little bigger or fuller may be what I would say I'm hearing the most. That fat sound without being overtly loud.

Your setup looks nice and solid, all the links in the chain about equal. The obvious place for me would be a channel strip, or mic, but it really depends on what you record. If your an electronic guy maybe a Yamaha dx7 will give you some rich bottom.
I'm guessing by diffusion you mean absorbsion panels, as fast as acoustic treatment. Do you have a cloud over the mix position.? I.e. Absorbsion panels.?

No cloud over my mix position. Definately food for thought there.

Its mostly rock as for what I'm playing and mixing, some electronic but not much. I have a Korg PA 60 and for live keys I do have a parlour grand and an upright, but not in the same room due to space limitations. Any other synth / keys I use VSTi's and either use a 25 key midi controller or the Korg via midi.

I believe you should mix on something that sounds similar to what your end user will have. I don't do club/dance music, so I don't need a sub. Lots of recent audio projects have been designed for end use on iPads of all things, so I'm mixing on some quite nasty speakers - and have not got hardly any bass content - because if you try, the speakers fart and you can't hear the bass anyway. My main system has bass in my middle of the road music quantities. I also have questions about 'subs' too? Are we talking subs that just put back in the missing octave at the bottom - so you can hear all the notes on say, a 5 string guitar, or are we talking subs that hit your diaphragm and make you gasp? I've got both types of subs in my PA systems - one just sounds fuller and the other makes a kick drum kick! I'm not sure which is really a 'sub' - if there are two types, there are probably more? So full and flat from bottom to top, or something more violent and humpy, response wise?

IF you decide to get a pair Yamma-Hammers know that they are as inefficient a set of speakers ever conceived and will gladly soak up all the headroom on a large full-range amp. Trans-nova is the bottom rung for these. A solid simple amp with good power and range. But NS-10's can take 'brutal'. A lot of the big boys use em with a Bryston 4B. I had a pair for a year. Crown 300 and it was not enough. Sounded great on my 4311's though. If I had a set of speaks that I was used to and wanted to get a second pair, I think I would look for something much better than what I have and relegate the "known quantity" to my secondary set. Save your money and look at Focal's or Genelecs or Dynaudios

paulears, post: 433585, member: 47782 wrote: I believe you should mix on something that sounds similar to what your end user will have. I don't do club/dance music, so I don't need a sub. Lots of recent audio projects have been designed for end use on iPads of all things, so I'm mixing on some quite nasty speakers - and have not got hardly any bass content - because if you try, the speakers fart and you can't hear the bass anyway. My main system has bass in my middle of the road music quantities. I also have questions about 'subs' too? Are we talking subs that just put back in the missing octave at the bottom - so you can hear all the notes on say, a 5 string guitar, or are we talking subs that hit your diaphragm and make you gasp? I've got both types of subs in my PA systems - one just sounds fuller and the other makes a kick drum kick! I'm not sure which is really a 'sub' - if there are two types, there are probably more? So full and flat from bottom to top, or something more violent and humpy, response wise?

Here's my take:

If you mix intelligently on an accurate and familiar system it will translate well. Subs should simply reproduce what's there. The mix itself should hit you in the chest, or not, as is appropriate for the music. A good mix will translate because people are accustomed to the deficiencies of their playback systems and as long as there aren't mix deficiencies on top of the playback deficiencies it will sound right to them.

The trick to getting bass to be heard on playback systems that lack LF is to make sure some upper harmonics of the bass instruments are present. One of my early mixing errors, live and in the studio, was taking the word bass too literally. I tried boosting the bass and cutting mids and highs. Of course all I got was indistinct rumble.

Now I have a system which involves dividing things into 3-5 frequency ranges. I listen to the way multiple instruments combine in each range. For example, once I set the bass so its LF is right I'll use eq to get its presence range in proper balance with the rest of the mix. Each instrument tends to have one range that I use as the anchor, set by the fader, and other ranges that float relative to the anchor, set by eq. I call this "mixing with eq".

One really good reason to have a sub for music that's not supposed to be bass heavy is so if there is LF that shouldn't be there you can hear it and correct the problem.

In the last couple of years my mix process which I try like heck to stick with, has been to set the drums and bass with the lead vocals only. When this is 'rockin' I add everything else relative to these. I try to never touch the original mix of the bass, drums, vocals. If at any time during adding all the other tracks I cannot hear or feel the bass or the kik then something is too loud or has a frequency masking these. Repair is then part of the process but NEVER the drums. bass and vocal originally at their mix levels.

Davedog, post: 433609, member: 4495 wrote: In the last couple of years my mix process which I try like heck to stick with, has been to set the drums and bass with the lead vocals only. When this is 'rockin' I add everything else relative to these. I try to never touch the original mix of the bass, drums, vocals. If at any time during adding all the other tracks I cannot hear or feel the bass or the kik then something is too loud or has a frequency masking these. Repair is then part of the process but NEVER the drums. bass and vocal originally at their mix levels.

Almost the same thing, same time frame. I'm not as rigid about not changing the drum/bass/vocals but I start with those and try like heck to keep that structural core from getting obscured. Actually, I start with kick, snare and vocals, then add bass, then finish the drums. Then I fill in the rest.

Davedog, post: 433609, member: 4495 wrote: In the last couple of years my mix process which I try like heck to stick with, has been to set the drums and bass with the lead vocals only. When this is 'rockin' I add everything else relative to these. I try to never touch the original mix of the bass, drums, vocals. If at any time during adding all the other tracks I cannot hear or feel the bass or the kik then something is too loud or has a frequency masking these. Repair is then part of the process but NEVER the drums. bass and vocal originally at their mix levels.

Dave, do you set the vocals first then bring in the drums & bass? I like the idea, I must try it.(y)

I don't know about Dave, but I get the kick and snare going to make a good solid beat, then I set the vocal onto that. Once I get those three working as one I add the bass.

The snare sound may need to include the overheads, so it's not always just the close mic that I use in that first kick/snare step.

bouldersound, post: 433653, member: 38959 wrote: I don't know about Dave, but I get the kick and snare going to make a good solid beat, then I set the vocal onto that. Once I get those three working as one I add the bass.

The snare sound may need to include the overheads, so it's not always just the close mic that I use in that first kick/snare step.

Yep. Basically the same although at the end of this process the entire drum tracks are included with bass and vocals. As I said, when this is done everything else, no matter how many instruments, gets added and AT ANY TIME if I cannot clearly hear or feel the beat and the bass movement and the vocals become masked in any way, then I schedule the OTHER parts for surgery.

I do not use a sub. I've thought about it from time to time but it seems like it would complicate my comfortability I've built up over the years.

I just don't think I could ever get my control room to be treated/balanced in the low freqs that I could rely on a sub with confidence. I think I'd have to build brand new with lots of pre-thought to accomplish that.

Without a sub the interaction between the room and the monitors' LF output is dictated by their placement. You can place a sub for optimal LF response in the room.

My belief is that it's worth having a sub integrated into your system, and, as others have pointed out, positioned correctly in your mixing room. Even if you perform all your mixing with the sub turned off, you should listen to your supposedly final mix with the sub turned on to see if there are LF effects that you missed.

A lot of my recordings are captured live on-site, and a couple of times I have been embarrassed by an ME picking things up at the mastering stage that I should have heard and dealt with in the mix. Since getting a sub, I have caught tube trains, wind noise, bus and truck engines as well as a host of other effects. In addition, I reckon to achieve a smoother bottom end to the music than just relying on the less certain low-end response of my main monitors.

Subs, don't have to be 'heard' it's not a rock concert, or a ride in someone's car slamming hip hop. It's not that kinda sub bass. Mixing with a sub is there to reinforce what's weak. I look at it as headroom. If the mains aren't working as hard to push the lows, I don't have to put them as loud, and get better efficiency out of the amps.