I've heard some crappy sounding current songs/recordings and I have heard some fantastic-sounding ones, too. And, I've heard both of these things in all of the 4 decades that I've been musically active.

There will always be great sounding audio and terrible sounding audio. And I think it's important to separate out the differences between bad-sounding audio and bad songs, those songs that you may not like from the songs that you do.

For example, Louie Louie is a fun song to listen to, it's raucous and raw and fun. But, it's an awful sounding recording. By the same token, Paul Anka's Havin' My Baby is fairly decent in fidelity, and is on par with "the sound" of 1970's easy listening music.. but ...it's quite possibly one of the worst songs ever written and recorded. LOL

When I purchase a particular piece of gear, whether it's a guitar, an amp, or a preamp, keyboard, software, or whatever, I'm doing it for me... to make me happy, and to hopefully help improve my sound, for as good as that piece will allow, but also knowing that success doesn't lay only in that piece of gear or that software... It's up to me to know what I'm doing with it, or else it's just a box with wires.

IMHO of course.

d.

Kurt Foster, post: 431068, member: 7836 wrote: i am sooooo done spending wads of cash on this sh*t. when kids like Tame Impala make hit records on a BOSS 8 tracker, why should i? i don't need expensive gear to get "the modern sound" ...... lol.

I believe the Tame Impala records (especially the newest "Currents") sound appropriate for their sound and I enjoy it.

kmetal
Sound and Color by Alabama Shakes is a fantastic record in every category. (y)

DonnyThompson, post: 431078, member: 46114 wrote: When I purchase a particular piece of gear, whether it's a guitar, an amp, or a preamp, keyboard, software, or whatever, I'm doing it for me... to make me happy, and to hopefully help improve my sound, for as good as that piece will allow, but also knowing that success doesn't lay only in that piece of gear or that software... It's up to me to know what I'm doing with it, or else it's just a box with wires.

For sure. (y)

Almost every piece of gear I've purchased in the last 4 decades taught me something I couldn't have known without owning it for a period of time.

In regards to monitoring and hybrid audio, I can honestly say, everything I've learned about hybrid was learned through owning it all first. Very little of all I know about it now could have been learned in a book or hear-say. Very little came from forums and other engineers doing it as well. In fact, most of what I've read on other forums about hybrid mixing has been mostly rudimentary level. Nothing has been as intense or misleading as hybrid for me. It's also the most over rated money pit nonsense in Pro Audio today. But I also feel the same way about most basic plug-ins, what a money pit. The whole software upgrading thing is such a ripoff. And so is all the DSP PCI card bloat.

ChrisH, post: 431053, member: 43833 wrote: Room test results at 85db

& then at 78db. WoW!

This was a huge learning experience for me to see how important and sensitive it is to mix at the lowest level possible.

Brien Holcombe, post: 431096, member: 48996 wrote: Doesn't make sense that you would get approx. a 40dB level difference @ 20Hz and for that same frequency to be LOUDER at a lower level. Obviously deep bass trapping is next on your Christmas List. As deep as 6 inches and with no space behind it. You need all the friction you can get.

If you can get a handle on the low frequency range, and monitor at the lower level you may well get a nice flat response in this awkward area you are in. Do all the vertical corners....

Start a new thread and show us what you have already...talk can be misinterpreted on both sides of the thread and pictures tell the ills of a room quickly so are the best form of communication in this respect.

Indeed, words of advice here.

I won't go on much more on this thread but I'll say this as a final note to monitoring.
The biggest wake-up call of all products I've used in over 4 decades is without doubt, a monitor controller and acoustics.

I mix at low levels. Never loud anymore. 85 db is painful and not very productive for me. I get the 85db level, but its way too loud for lengthy mixing on nearfields. I hear great at low volumes and I can honestly say that my monitors sound very consistent at all levels.

I choose monitors that sound excellent at low volumes. I also choose a monitor controller that is extremely accurate at low volumes , that has the ability to calibrate ALL the speakers and points of capture, with surgical pin point accuracy right across the workflow.
If you are having a hard time hearing what you are doing, (where its not translating) I doubt its the speakers alone. I can pretty much mix on any set of speakers, including 2 inch TV speakers within reason. All I need to do is listen to them for a while.
Being able to compare and listen surgically is useless if your room is misleading you.
Before you spend a dime, I would get your room sounding right. It sounds like your room is the biggest problem you have right now. It also sounds like the bass and top end may be distracting you.

It amazes me how many hours and sometimes days I've spent talking to engineers, and new bands are often the last thing that comes up. It's easy to forget that it's a service job. I've probably spent a bit less than half of the countless hours in control rooms listening to music I haven't recorded, for fun. In the last year I've intentionally listened for fun a lot more, and broadening my collection even more. I think keeping in touch with the fire of creativity goes just as far as any other tool in the box.

I've literally heard Sublime's self titled album over 10.000 times easy. Once in a while, something new to me will still pop up. Once we get a better handle on rooms and speakers we will be able to better understand the interpretations of sound. I am certain we all aren't hearing the same thing the same way.

A real problem is the popularity of powered monitors. Many of these have limiters built in that can mask distortion from other sources

bob Olhsson
I never knew this:
http://bobolhsson.com/bob-says/on-mixing/
cool website (y)

ChrisH, post: 431084, member: 43833 wrote: I believe the Tame Impala records (especially the newest "Currents") sound appropriate for their sound and I enjoy it.

kmetal
Sound and Color by Alabama Shakes is a fantastic record in every category. (y)

...... and i rest my case your honor. lol.

We'd most likely all be changing our tune (gear list here or there) if we were making wads of cash in this business. There is no money left and the new generation is simply using what they can get their hands on to make music. If I was 18 again, I'd be doing the same. And, I'm pretty sure my friends would think it sounds good enough. So, what's left to complete the equation?

Bottom line. We don't need great equipment or record companies to make music today .

audiokid, post: 431167, member: 1 wrote: We'd most likely all be changing our tune (gear list here or there) if we were making wads of cash in this business. There is no money left and the new generation is simply using what they can get their hands on to make music. If I was 18 again, I'd be doing the same. And, I'm pretty sure my friends would think it sounds good enough. So, what's left to complete the equation?

Bottom line. We don't need great equipment or record companies to make music today .

that's what i was saying ..... :rolleyes:

Oh I thought you were saying young people don't experience great recordings. I don't know that it translates to greatness in their own art, but some people are digging past apples top 40.

on the whole, i don't think today's generation has been exposed to great artists, recorded well, with the exception of a very few and imo, not Tame Impala or Alabama Shakes .... LOL!. i'm hot on the stuff Gabe Roth is recording at DAPTONE ....

but yes there are great artists creating ... and yes, every once in a while someone records something that really does sound good .... but in general, the media is flooded with sub standard artists, recorded in a sub standard fashion only because there are fewer "filters" in place (no one to say no).

it's very difficult to sort through to find the diamonds in that pile. and i think that a new aesthetic prevails in which ugly sounds are acceptable / desirable. the catch phrase is, "i meant it to sound like that .... "

I hear ya. I like the dapkings whole thing myself. It's interesting to listen to Gary Clark Jrs, 2 releases of his tune "bright lights". It's very very kntersting to experience essentially the same song, mixed quite differently. Rob cavallo got accused of too perfect on his version. I like both of them, but I also don't belive either is truly his sound. He will develop it.

i am always wiling to hear new music. i listened to a couple of Gary Clark Jr videos .... ehhh! i do dig the Sharon Jones & Dapkings .... but not just DapKings from Daptone ..... the Amy Winehouse stuff Mark Ronson did at Daptone is supurb. the thing is that studio is soooooo funky looking. it's an old house adapted to a recording studio. you look at it and think "what a sh*t hole!" but when you hear the stuff coming out of there, who can argue?

another guy i really dig is [[url=http://[/URL]="https://www.google…"]Gary Paczosa[/]="https://www.google…"]Gary Paczosa[/] ... what he's done with Union Station /Nickle Creek ..... phenomenal!

I like that they redesigned the product so much. This is interesting.

oh la la! This is what we are talking about around here. Me like a lot . :love:
The Grace Design m905 looks to be a combination of Dangerous Music ST and SPL Phonitor monitor controller designs and more!

I need to get this here.

Another video with a bit more info

Grace Design m905 Monitor Controller Features:

• Comprehensive monitor controller with remote control
• Color LCD screen makes it easy to navigate remote control functions
• Precise .5dB stepped level control
• Realtime SPL monitoring via remote control
• Headphone outputs on rack unit and on remote control
• s-Lock dual-stage PLL (Phase Lock Loop) for ultra-low jitter and top-notch audio performance
• Inputs and outputs can be named for display on remote control
• Dedicated Mono, Dim, and Mute switches
• Mono mode can be set to L+R summed, Left-channel only in both channels, or Right-channel only in both channels
• Three sets of stereo analog inputs, plus talkback mic input
• Three sets of analog stereo outputs, plus a mono subwoofer input
• Digital input via AES/EBU, S/PDIF, Toslink, and ADAT
• Digital output via AES/EBU and S/PDIF

class="xf-ul">

Incredible sound and control from the Grace Design m905!

Tech Specs
Input Channels 6
Output Channels 6
Analog Inputs 5 x XLR, 2 x RCA
Analog Outputs 5 x XLR, 1 x 1/4" (Headphones)
Digital Inputs 1 x S/PDIF, 1 x ADAT, 1 x TOSLINK, 1 x XLR, 2 x AES/EBU
Digital Outputs 1 x S/PDIF, 1 x AES/EBU
Talkback Yes
Form Factor Rackmount
Height 3.5" (Main Chassis), 2.2" (Remote Control)
Width 17" (Main Chassis), 8.9" (Remote Control)
Depth 10.5" (Main Chassis), 5.1" (Remote Control)
Weight 7.8 lbs. (Main Chassis), 2.2 lbs. (Remote Control)

This thing smokes. From what I gather is neck and neck in sonics w the Cranseong holy grail, but the features! The digital connectivity! It's also not cheap, and the surround version is $6.5k. But man i think this is the contender. I feel like it may not be truly mastering level quality, but not much else is beating the level it's at. Been looking strongly at this thing the last couple hours.

This is good enough for mastering and deadly for tracking and mixing. Looks like an incredible monitoring system. (period)(y)

In a two DAW system, this is exactly "what and all I need". Something like this saves me thousands in added software and hardware.
Why do I say that? Because I hear what I am doing "better" therefore, I can use what I have to get it done. I do not keep fooling myself into thinking I need yet another product to do something I already have, ITB. That's how I look at this expenditure.

Never the less, this looks excellent. Thanks for sharing.

kmetal, post: 423546, member: 37533 wrote: I'm really even wondering how much accuracy even matters compared to picking something that just sounds good.

So, I finally understand what you meant by this.
I've lived with my Opals for about a year now and unfortunately they aren't a good fit for me and I have them up for sale.
The opals are great speakers but I didn't pick them the right way by actually listening to them "shootout style" and choosing them out of multiple pairs in person, in my own mixing room.
Nothing bad to say about what Event created with them, they are truly a work of art, I'm just not the right owner.

As I go along with all aspects of music I've realized that with all musical gear you're probably best off to choose what you buy by picking it out in person, closing your eyes, and avoid seeing brands and price tags. When it comes to guitars (especially acoustic guitars) you should find one you like at a good store and buy that exact guitar, not the one in back that's still in a box.
I think what I have experienced here with the Opals is simply a matter of mismatched taste/flavor.

kmetal, post: 423546, member: 37533 wrote: I'm wondering if the correct answer to the OP is simply, "whichever sounds subjectively the best'.

As crazy as it sounds, I think there's a lot of truth to that statement.

It's all about being sure of what your hearing or not hearing, and your tendencies to react to it. Beyond that if what your hearing doesn't excite you, what's the point?

The mixes I did on a home stereo way back, travel around just fine. Not in a detailed way, but just sound consistent. I believe this has very much to do me hearing the mixes the way they were gonna sound every where else. On a normal mid 90's awia component stereo.

Every monitor claims "flat +/- ?db" yet none of them sound the same. Timbre is not measured well by pink noise.

The biggest problem in studio monitoring is decay times. If you have a consistent decay time across the spectrum your golden. Flat could be a flat response, with a 5sec decay time. That would be flat, while also being completely impractical.

My mackies are the first pair of studio speakers I bought. And I was fooled by their hyped mid/top, and nothing sounds bad on these things, or everything sounds good. Their basically nice home stereo nice speakers if you ask me, not necessarily studio lenses.

Monitors are designed with no bearing on where they will end up. They test them in anechoic chambers. People by them and put them in rooms that vary from a corner nook, to a 2,500cubic foot pro room. Oh, wait pro? What's that ? Oh yeah there's no real standard studio design either. In fact many opposing design philosophies work quite well. Non enviornment vs Lede being one that comes to mind.

Home theater speakers, and any speaker in general, is going to reccomend a symmetrical listening position, and +/- 3 or 6 db. This isn't just 'studio speakers'. This again has no addressing of decay times. So my response can be within 6db, but the bass could hang around indefinitely, and as long as it stayed within the DB tolerance, the speaker can be claimed 'flat'.

Flat is for pancakes. We don't mix flat, we don't listen flat, we can't make flat rooms. It is a myth. I'm not suggesting acoustics aren't important, they are one of the most fundemtals important things we deal w. I'm suggesting that 'flat' is simply a catch phrase, a buzzword.

Hollywood mixers, mix movies on big screens, and in surround rooms, that mimic the enviornment they are meant for. I want to follow this route. Mastering rooms usually have incredible acoustics, yet almost never look like those space ship styl control rooms we love.

I've been in maybe a dozen studios, of varying types, and heard at least 2 dozen studio monitors, none sounded even close. They sounded like completely different speakers, in completely different rooms. Because they were. The only consistency I here is JBL putting excessively harsh tweeters in every speaker they make, regardless of the speakers purpose.

Monitors are like shoes chosen for the task. Then, I personally choose ones to help offset personal deficiencies as a strategic goal.
If I worded that correctly,
2 examples: I would never buy monitors just because someone endorsed a particular brand. I would trust a peer to like something but this means nothing to me unless we both hear, think, have the exact same rooms and were mixing hit after hit of the same type of music I was also doing. Most likely why monitors are such a personal item and the opinions are all over the map. What works for you, is good for you.

Some may prefer brighter speakers because they could also have hearing loss in the upper register. Or just the opposite, someone knowing they always lack mids in their mixes strategically buy a more mid defendant speaker to counter their issues, and so it goes.
Just because I like something doesn't always mean its right for me either. I tend to like what I am used to and not what I should be doing. Which can be a really bad mistake if my room is already adding or lacking freqs I keep missing or pushing too much.

Opals are awesome full range speakers that also have excellent low end. My room is so well tuned that they instantly sound awesome to me. But, I always mix on Cubes because the mids are the most difficult area I have.

Monitors are like shoes chosen for the task. Then, I personally choose ones to help offset personal deficiencies as a strategic goal.
If I worded that correctly,
2 examples: I would never buy monitors just because someone endorsed a particular brand. I would trust a peer to like something but this means nothing to me unless we both hear, think, have the exact same rooms and were mixing hit after hit of the same type of music I was also doing. Most likely why monitors are such a personal item and the opinions are all over the map. What works for you, is good for you.

Some may prefer brighter speakers because they could also have hearing loss in the upper register. Or just the opposite, someone knowing they always lack mids in their mixes strategically buy a more mid deficient speaker to counter their issues, and so it goes.
Just because I like something doesn't always mean its right for me either. I tend to like what I am used to and not what I should be doing. Which can be a really bad mistake if my room is already adding or lacking freqs I keep missing or pushing too much.

Opals are awesome full range speakers that also have excellent low end. My room is so well tuned that they instantly sound awesome to me. But, I always mix on Cubes because the mids are the most difficult area I have.

audiokid, post: 438610, member: 1 wrote: Just because I like something doesn't always mean its right for me either.

That's deep Chris. it is/was my experience w the mackies. I really love listening to music and tv all day on them, but mixing with them leaves a little to be desired. When you do a tight Q frequency sweep on the Meyer HD 1s vs the mackies, the mackie misses some things, where the HD 1s have a smooth elvolving whistle to them.

I haven't found a monitor I love yet. I prefer listening to a smiley face curve, which makes my mids hollow out of the home. The Uries on the other hand are nothing but mids, loudly, with no hint of sub lows, over at Normandy, and i like my mixes best out of that room, which is also the acoustically best room I work in. I like the mixes but I, don't necessarily like mixing on them, I find them pericing, and obnoxious in the 5k range.

I think I'm going to go with a passive midfield/main set next.