I worked in a studio with a frequency response of about +/- 2 dB from 10Hz to 20kHz. And what’s important - a flat phase response. It is not a “scam”. It’s a blessing to work with. You can mix faster, and longer. You don’t guess, you just mix. You don’t need to check your mix in a car, you even don’t need a second pair of monitors or auratone cubes. After a full day you feel less tired. There is empirical data: The number of my client revisions dropped significantly right away. From 5-10 to 1-3. The argument that some guy making good songs without flat FR is weak. It means nothing. We don’t know what hoops he’s jumping through to get the mix done. If it works for him it doesn’t mean it works for anybody else. I agree on one thing with this video - you still need to work on your skills. Everything else is an opinion of a dude that never tried the subject himself.
Yep. Anyone can mix pro-level results in any environment with any gear/software if three things are present: 1. They're experienced and know what they're doing. 2. They intimately know their monitoring environment. 3. Their monitoring environment is low or zero phase. Room FR curves not needing to be flat to mix? Sure. But a flat FR makes it a helluva lot easier. Compensating for an FR means more guesswork. I don't want guesswork when I mix. I want to know the moves I make are exactly what's occurring and what I'm hearing. That makes mix translations much more accurate. I listened to my mixes before and after correction curves and the difference startling. And guess what? In the "before" scenario, I was clueless it was even happening.
I myself bought a buttkicker haptic device as an experiment and it changed my life when mixing low end. You can actually feel if everything is in phase and is hitting you nicely and when there is a problem you just know and don't guess. It is the equivalent of perfect frequency response room.
@@---pp7tq Yeah, obviously. Every room is reverberant. I'm just saying that the point of the video is stupid. Every room must be learned, like every set of headphones must be learned. It's still a better idea to learn a quality treated room, as it is a quality pair of headphones, than an awful room or budget headphones.
I use three things to mix and reference - one set of pro headphones, one set of crappy $10 headphones, and my car speakers. The only studio monitors I ever bought were Behringer, which I currently use for my record player. So far, I haven't been arrested by the audio police.
SHOW ME YOUR HANDS (ears)! SHOW ME YOUR HANDS NOW! GET ON THE GROUND! You're under arrest for exceeding the loudness limit and excess frequency imbalances!
With how many people listen mainly on basic earbuds, having something that translates as well on them as on a big system is the way to go! Extra bonus points for bass that translates to cell phone speakers too 😅
room treatment's main goal actually isn't flattening the response, in most cases. it usually is to lower the decay time of problematic parts of the spectrum that linger for longer than they should. it's more about the time domain not the frequency domain.
Decay time is one of the reasons why some people use sealed speakers like NS-10 or HS5-8. It might help with getting better translation. And most problems lie in a low end when you see a waterfall.
I also think such a big youtube channel should have mentioned this. Also, a flat curve is surely not needed but if you are missing frequencies in the spectrum or if they resonate, you need treatment.
Yes, and by reducing those resonant peaks, you get a cleaner impulse response in the room. The frequency response overall improves but the greatest overlooked benefit is the time domain response. In short, better transients, less group delays, shallower notches, better windowing on the signal overall.
mixer with 40 billion+ streams here. I have had much better results going the neutral reference route. It's definitely not a scam and has sped up my workflow dramatically. I made the jump like 2 years ago and every single part of my life got easier. Never going back. All the hit songs I mixed on my sub optimal monitoring all would have been way better and finished faster had I been working in a neutral reference monitoring setup. Get your Katana sharp kids.
I haven't watched the video yet, but here’s my 50-years-of-pro-audio opinion: it doesn’t matter what gear you use to make or mix music-period. What truly matters is knowing what you're doing and having what we call "ears." Back in my day, we checked our mixes on everything. We’d start on NS10s, then listen on Auratones, and huge UREI monitors. And you know what? We’d jump in ANYONE'S car to check it on a cassette! Everyone threw in their two cents. After that, I might listen on my Walkman. We did this as many times as it took until EVERYONE was happy with the sound across all platforms. My gear has changed over the years, but my process remains the same. Does it sound good on my near-fields? My cubes? In mono? On my large JBLs? From the hallway? In headphones? On my laptop or phone? If you can say "yes" to all of those, then you might be done! 🤣 Let’s be real: nobody listens to music in perfectly tuned or treated rooms through flat studio monitors. We do that for ourselves because we’re insecure audio geeks-and companies have learned how to sell their products to us. ☮💟🌍
Couldn't be farther from the truth.. Treated rooms makes us work much faster and better - without having to constantly double check your work in various circumstances. The misinformation on UA-cam is truly staggering, no wonder many people get confused.
Dirty audio industry secret: The shape of your ear canal can cause resonant build ups of couple of dbs worth all around the frequency spectrum and it can differ from ear to ear. This alone defeats any hope for flat response curves landing on your eardrums.
The recommendation should be for the studio monitors themselves to measure flat, not for the in-room response at the listening position to be flat because that is dependent on how reverberant the room is, how far the listening position is from the speakers, the speakers dispersion characteristics, and if the listener is off-axis to the speakers. The speakers themselves should be accurate in the direct listening window, with a smooth directivity. A flat in-room response doesnt make sense unless you're nearfield, have a well treated room or have a narrow directivity speaker, and you are directly on-axis to the speaker.
I need help! I don't know why but my mixes sound tooo wide ! Like there is no mono signal going on compared to other mixes that i hear on spotify or youtube! Also the vocal seems to be to stereo even if i use mono plugins on the chain
I recorded in many high end studios before I became a sound engineer myself in the late 80's, 90's 2000's so on, and no matter who the engineer was they always did a car test. Rule of thumb at least for the guys we worked with and these guys knew their craft in and out. Taught me alot. Now with that said I really don't like the sound of car stereos. I think most of them sound terrible. I am confident enough that after I am done mixing and mastering a song that it will translate well on just about anything from EarPods, cars, those little jbl pills and even a sound bar. Here's the thing. Even though I know it will sound great out the gate I will still listen to my mixes on EarPods because I like to listen to music that way when I am not in my studio. I also have a cheap pair of those Mackie little monitors with the green ring around the speaker deals in my other business and they always sounds great. So I don't know. I see some engineers in here saying they never do a car test or listen on something else other than their studio monitors but It's like saying you only listen to music when you are in your studios and not anywhere else on anything else. I call bullshite to that one.
My room is not treated but I can get a pro level sound just by comparing my mixes to other pro released songs. Putting hundreds or thousands of hours into mixing will train your ears to know what frequencies are too little or too much in your tracks/buses and just understanding the basics like scooping 200 and 500hz on vocals and guitars and rolling off the high and low end on your guitar buses. The other day I was working on a mix with a kick and toms and noticed the kick wasn't coming through in the mix so I rolled off the low end in the toms up to 200hz and problem solved. You don't need all these super fancy plugins to get good results you just need to know how to use EQ/compression/panning/volume staging well. Things like bus clipping/snare and vocal reverb/side chain compression/vocal desser can help as well. Things I always do with panning are rhythm guitars/back up vocals harmonies hard left/right..... lead guitars/vocals center.... drum cymbals panned 20-35 degrees left and right as if drummer is on stage facing you. Also creating a template to have all your settings ready to go from the start will save you infinite time in tracking/mixing wish I realized this from the beginning.
@@duncan.o-vic My mixes sound pretty good. I'm not trying to pay people 1K per song just to get them 5-10 percent better. Also what do you know about mixing or my mixing quality there buddy? sounds like some blind/deaf judgment if you ask me. I know who can't mix for shit..... Ross. His mixes are thin and tinny. Also there is no exact way to mix. Go listen to your favorite 10-20 hit songs. The variation in there EQing and volume staging is all over the place. There are a ton of hit songs over the years that are improperly mixed. Bush's first two records are a great example. The original record mixes were dogshit and they still had a ton of hits.
@@duncan.o-vicsounds like your doing what you say hes doing. You don't know anything like I don't cause you and I have no reference cause we both have not listened to his work.
Can't comment on your mixes since I haven't heard them... but the logic doesn't hold up. If you have a huge dip somewhere in the low end in your room, it doesn't matter what reference you compare your mix to, you simply can't hear that part of the spectrum to be able to adjust it correctly. Headphones can somewhat help, but I find that they can handle loads of subs and bass while still sounding nice. Then you check your mix somewhere else only to find it is way too boomy. Those Slate VSX headphones do a pretty good job in that department in my experience.
Yes, but what about frequency masking? I think that's the main point of having a flat frequency response: being able to hear everything clearly. If there are bumps, you might not hear the problems in the surrounding frequencies very well But maybe I've been scammed too
@@robjohnson5829 I heard one very respected multi-platinum sound engineer in an interview, having their own (pretty pricey) pair of speakers, probably decent enough room, and at some point they mastered the translation to the point they only needed to check the music on some BT or some Auratone-style of speaker, can't remember, and that was it. No second guessing on systems from the whole planet. But it was someone definitely knowing what they're doing too.
@@richertzso i constantly move out of my sweetspot and walk around in my room and then comeback to my desk to mix ? Would be even faster to work overtime to get money for room treatment. Sry dude the biggest „scam“ in the audio industry is not fundamental audio acoustic principles. I would rather spend the money on room treatment then plugins or sample packs.
@@duncan.o-vicyep. He clearly doesnt know what a bad room can sound like or dont sound like 😂 but nice clickbait title. There a are tons of scams in this industry. Acoustic is science.
I see that specialists have no idea what "flat" really means. Equipment needs to have a flat response across all frequencies, this is one thing, but our ears are different, for our human ears to perceive a flat response we need to apply the Fletcher Munson curves (aka loudness curves). So if we are using a monitor to have the flattest response possible, it needs to have Fletcher Munson curves and returns some curves, not a flat line.
The scenario were having a more flat room response is super beneficial, is when other people are going to be in that room with you listening. Because maybe you're used to your own room, but they're not going to be and things are going to sound wrong to them even though they're actually correct.
If I have understood correctly, the video does not claim that a linear frequency response of a monitoring system is nonsensical. It only says that a linear frequency response is not absolutely necessary to achieve a good mix result. In his opinion, more important than a linear frequency response is a very good knowledge of one's own monitoring system and the ability to translate the monitoring conditions into a good mix. And even more important are a good ear and very good knowledge of his plug-ins, DAW operation, etc. Fundamental room acoustics corrections are also not called into question here. It's just claimed that you shouldn't invest so much time and money in optimising the room acoustics. Here too, the above-mentioned skills and lots of practical exercises are more important than the last 10% improvement in room acoustics technology. I think this view is correct because it focusses on the essential things. On the ear, the knowledge and the feeling for the music and not on the latest technology that ‘you absolutely have to have’ in order to achieve a good result. Good equipment is great and a certain technical standard is essential for professional results, but once this level has been reached, other factors are simply more important ...
I started home recording/mixing 3 years ago.....sort of. The first year, I spent just learning and getting comfortable with my DAW. The second year was spent buying *way* too many 'magic plugins' and watching demos.This year, I signed up for a mixing course that provided stems for dozens of songs - and I *actually* started mixing. I've learned so much more *doing* mixing. In the process, I'm learning my room. In hindsight, I wish I had just focused all of my energy mixing right from the start.
Man, I’m so glad I caught your video! I live in a townhouse, larger than average. I record and mix in a room that has my AC/Heat Pump in the closet. I definitely need to absorb some of the slap in the room but I’m lazy. I’ve been thinking I need to get some treatment on the walls and buy new studio monitors. I’ve been watching a ton of videos and was just about to pull the trigger on spending a ton of money. The logic you speak makes perfect sense. I am very used to my room and know what frequencies to compensate for in my mixes. I actually use my preset templates. The internet makes me feel like I’m missing out on perfection if I don’t do what everyone else is doing. Thank you for the video, it just pulled my heads out of the clouds.
Solid advice here. One thing - based on mixing in a Nortward acoutics FTB control room for more than 10 years now: a truly flay mixing room is a joy to work in. You actually here what is really there. Still, as you said, you need to get enough time in to get familiar. The real scam is in all this acoustic treatment, especially basstrap stuff. If you understand the science and know how much work gets into actually getting the lowend under control (within a +/- 3dB range in the 30-300Hz range), you understand a few basstraps or superchunck corners really do not do the trick. Also, the measurement is tricky: just measuring a the ideal listening position is not enough. Just move your head 20cm and the situation can change drastically in a not well built room. Last but not least: most "professionally treated" rooms are actually far from great rooms. Unless the CR is really large, chances are the 30-300Hz is also all over the place.
How in the world are bass traps scams? I mean there are scam ones out there, but the concept of controlling excess ringing in a room is just plain science. Fluid dynamics, and its not even subjective. Only subjective part is where you might think "good enough" is
@@pipelineaudio-p8d exactly, and to really get lowend under control you typically need to give up WAY more volume than advertised. If you have really dug into the science- which is not that straightforward for small rooms - you would understand what the scam is here. To give you an idea: in my FTB control room (designed by Northward Acoustics) there is 90cm of depth just on my back wall to get the lowend under control. And this incorporates both absorbent as well as membrane systems. Really, a couple of 10cm deep “basstraps” will hardly do anything at all to get lowend modes under control.
So true! When I got my first set of monitors I went a bit in the rabbit hole, but didn't expect much. Got a measurement mic, used a free software (paid ones seemed like a reap-off), spent a weekend learning how to calibrate things and measure my room, etc. Wasted time? not at all! I learned a lot! Loved it, in fact! Gained more of an intuition for what/how to listen to my speaker setup in my room, and about acoustics in general. But that's the thing, perfect is literally impossible, so just manage your own expectations. Having an idea and getting used to listen and how your setup behaves is waaaay more valuable than any bit of foam or anything else you can buy, especially learning to listen, which is a never ending practice imo. Thanks for sharing this :D.
I also got confused at first but then I understood it: - Flat frequency response: the target for the speakers when they are measured in an anechoic room (or measured "on axis" in Spinorama) - Harman frequency response: a non-flat frequency response that you will get in a room but that sounds "flat" by human ears after the room is acoustically well treated (its also the prefered response curve by the majority in Headphones). - Frequencies Decay time: the amount of time that a sound takes to be completely silent in a room after suddenly stopped playing, it should be around 300-400 ms in low frequencies). That's it. The final response curve in a professional studio is not flat, its "smooth", with no big dips or spikes, but is also deviated downwards in the High frequencies.
Great video. My studio is not perfect, far from tbh. What’s more important is the things you point out, like knowing how your room sounds. Another important thing I want to add, is ear training. If you don’t know what frequencies you are hearing, then it’s likely your mix will sound bad. I use both monitors and great headphones to mix and master songs. And near field monitors work perfect for any room. Like the name implies, you have to sit in front of them from a very short distance, like 3 feet or less, which results in direct sound without bouncing frequencies.
I've been saying the same thing for years now. New engineers run out to do the "Car test" to check their mix... The answer is in their face, they have hundreds/thousands of hours behind the wheel and know what a good mix sounds like in that space. Listen to records you know and love in your studio and render the car test obsolete!
I really can't stress enough how much I appreciate the honest "no bullshit" approach of this channel! I feel like there is so much marketing going on around audio and especially mixing/mastering that makes it way too easy to fall into the trap of spending more and more money on the next "big thing". On top of a lot of people who seem to have no idea what they are actually talking about on UA-cam or social media in general. Thanks a lot for debunking a lot of the myths that are out there!
Great video and conversation here! Because we often don't get to "know our room" in live sound, we gravitate toward tuning our systems to target curves. I try to reproduce "my room" rather than a flat room from gig to gig on different systems and locations.
My room is lying to me, my speakers are lying to me, my headphones are lying to me, my car stereo is lying to me… but somewhere in the middle of all that is the truth, and it usually turns out ok if you know what you’re doing and have decent ears.
Thank you very much for video, it is eyeopening! I'm from Europe. Your video also looks fantastic, so analog. Can you please tell, what camera did you use in recording this video. I would be very greatful. Thank you very much, wish you all the best!
Oh my, I can't agree more... It has always seemed logical to me. You get used to something, you listen to music on it so you know how to set the levels. But yeah, everyone is always like - you need the best gear, best room, best blah blah.... I make music on my ipad and mix in my headphones. If I really care about the mix, my method is asking other people to listen, having like "second ears". You helped me to relax... I love being a bedroom producer, a mom making music on a kitchen table or in the bed where my baby is sleeping, these mind hacks are so freeing for people like me, thank you
I 100% agree that knowing your room is key to getting good mixes...I 100% completely disagree with you that room treatment and correction software are minimally effective...investing in making the room as good as possible makes knowing the room a much easier to accomplish, and makes what you're hearing that much more accurate...
ok im willing to agree with you here, but what about a baseline for a studio speaker, what do you recommend as a baseline? 10 x 12 room. I have jbl 305p and I have to sit really far back to hear the bass.
....there is no such thing as a perfect room !!! ...as soon as the temperature or humidity changes or there is one more person inside, everything changes again... thanx for the video ;-)
I adjusted my computer audio with EQ for my headphones and I have very flat sound. I tested my mix in the real treated professional studio with monitors and sound were very close, if not the same. I like it.
I started mixing on Kliptsch bookshelf speakers. My mixes from back then sound pretty much the same. Why? Cause I knew them. Same with the cans I use now. Are Senn HD650s "flatter"? maybe, but I don't know them, I know my Ollo's.
Your ears change everyday seems like to me, key is to get reasonably flat enough, and really know your speakers. I dont think -20 nulls or boosts make our jobs easier tough.
totally agree, it's all about the references that you hear in the same audio environment.. I realized after 13 years of making music that some of my best mixes were actually made on my first shitty speakers I used to have a long time ago. After switching to real studio monitors my mixes became more boring, even though I learned more about mixing. I still use to check all my mixes in my earpods, where I listen to 95% of the music anyway
Definitely lots of good points. It's good to treat a room and fix issues in it, but there is only so much you can do, without building a perfect room with an acoustic engineer. I've done my best mixes in a 10ft x 10ft (ish) asymmetrical room, where I've been the last 5 years. Definitely not the best place, but can't set up anywhere else in my appartment. Do the best I can on the monitors and when I want to make sure the details are fine I slap on my headphones. (and that was another learning curve with the 7506s where everything is super bright, until you test it somewhere else) But once you make the connection between the mixes in other sound systems and how your room or headphones are affecting the end result, it's a big eureka moment and you start compensating correctly
You'll see a lot less room interaction when you monitor at low monitor volume. The NS10 has a sharp rolloff below 200hz or so, so the room is actually supporting the speaker somewhat.
I am into acoustic treatment big time. Getting a flat room isn’t the best solution for me. I tune my room so I can hear the bass guitar a certain way in particular mixes. Sounds weird, but it’s the best way I’ve found to both use measurements and my ears at the same time (not just one or the other)
I have light treatment in my room & my mixes were always thin because my room had so much lower mid range I would cut it out of my tracks. When I bought Sound ID it changed my mixes . I don't have a flat response but I also don't have +10 db lower mid that don't really exist. You don't need a perfect room or expensive monitors but some balance helps!
That's exactly what I think! There's no such thing as a perfectly flat response in the audio industry. Every piece of gear has its own frequency response, and it’s never truly flat. As someone else mentioned in the comments, every ear is different, and due to the shape of our ear canals resonant frequencies between 2 kHz and 7 kHz are perceived differently, so the way we hear sound is constantly changing. I believe that reducing reflections in the room (essentially avoiding excessive reverb) and really understanding your tools and equipment are the most important steps to developing a unique way of perceiving sound and making informed decisions based on long-term experience!
It is wishfull thinking. While you can get used to frequency curves, you don't get used to narrow resonances and nulls. The example measurement is actually pretty flat for an untreated room. We hear a lot about exceptional mixing engineers who made it, but we don't hear about other 90% who think it must be something wrong with them if they can't make a good mix in their untreated rooms. Survivor bias.
you need your speakers to sound like a set of giant headphones . to get to this you need 1/ a treated room for bass / LF energy and mid to high reflections 2. likely a subwoofer - that hipasses mains at 90 hz (if the mains are 2 way ) to unload their cones and focus the midranges transient detail 3/ a non reflective desk - they comb up the 500 to 800 range 4/ a ceiling and side cloud to kill early reflections and focus the image 5/ a master monitor eq to remove any non positional specfic boost resonances and all nulls need to be minor to be workroundable ( assess with REQ or Sonarworks and then use physical EQ and treatment to fine tune ) 6/ monitors pointing hieght and angle are correct 7/ hearing assessment and master eq (that is bypassable for visitors ) that corrects for hearing issues if you do this , your monitors will sound like the music is in your head and inside you and you will mix very well , with punch and frequency richness. aim for 76 db spl when near field mixing
I totally agree with you here, the more time I spend using and mixing in my listening environment, the better I get and the better my mixes translates. I'm wondering about the pro studio though. Are they just trying to get rid of most reflections in the control/mix rooms or do they also aim for a flat frequency response? Because if they do, why? So that mix engineers can move between rooms or studios and work there without having to spend too much time to learn the new room? Or is it one of these things "that you have to do" to claim that you have a pro studio?
Very good points, that actually totally apply to headphones. But things get a little more complicated if your room isn't sufficiently flat, when customers come in to listen to orient a mix...
You can adapt to a crooked frequency response, because it is static and it affects every sound in the same way. What you cannot do is to adapt to the dacay of frequencies over time. The brain does not know that the muddyness of a bass is caused by a kick drum that is still decaying in the room, while actually not being there any more in the actual music. The result will be that the engineer will carve away too much muddy frequencies instead of leaving it alone. This is just one example, this general concept applies to every instrument. This is why room treatment is the most important thing to do or to use headphones that work well in the time domain, ie. upper end planar headphones.
A couple of near filed iLouds at low volume has really helped me with my crappy room. I'm use to how they sound and I have plenty of reference tools. The trip to the car usually reveals minimal adjustments needed if any.
Eye opening, no doubt, or should I say ear opening 😃… but still, isn’t there a bare minimum level of expectations from a room that can be used to create mixes? What would those be or is that Idea also snake oil? My mixing spot for example, has a curtain on one side and a cupboard on the other. Is that something one can ever get used to?
I think your comment around 6 minutes is the reason why I am a big fan of calibration tools... If I can create a standardized baseline in any room I'm in (easy to do with calibration software) it is much easier to get to work without having to "take time" to learn a new environment (which is literally not possible in a lot of timeframes).
Am I wrong if I say that worst case you have a favourite album with your known favourite sound and always use it as reference if the acoustic of your room is bad?
Yes you can become a custom to your setup. Otherwise I know the frequency response of my headphones and know to pay close attention to that area to make sure I get it right
I recently moved to another place and left my monitors behind due to the lack of space for now. I've been mixing for a while now on a sound bar with a subwoofer... When mixing on the monitors i always got bass heavy mixes and had to correct them. My first mix on the sound bar system was thin... but from that mix until now my low end way better and punchy and I like my mixes more now. As he said i think is a matter of getting used to it. I know how music sounds like on my headphones, on my phone speakers, and in my car so I sue them just for reference because I know how music sounds like on the sound bar system. For me there is no need of any extra cash spending trips, just listen to a lot of music on what you have and on what you are used to, and as long as you are not in an empty room that echoes I think it's okay to mix. And keep in mind that the casual consumer doesn't listen in a good room, monitors, expensive headphones and theatre systems.
Difference is with sonarworks you won’t need 4 sets of monitors to make the mix translate across sources. I’m using, and there’s no question it works. Very well even.
I'm more of a hobby mixing engineer, mainly mixing my own music. I mainly use my goto headphones for recording producing, I listen to them everyday and know how something should sound there. But most importantly, everything sounds great to me on them. This is so important,because producing music just so much more fun when you like what you hear. When I started recording I nought some cheaper monitors, and I was disappointed because everything sounded so boring. I was almost close to quitting. Then I switched in my headphones and I was like actually thats pretty cool and my motivation increased by 200%. Now my skills and ears are so much better but I didn't felt the need to upgrade my Monitor system. Of course when I finish my mixes I reference on every system I can find. What I wanted to say: making music should be fun. Everyone is so obsessed now with whats right and what's wrong and how to get the best mixes. Just enjoy the process, do what works best for you and you will get better results over time.
You are correct. I WILL say, the IK Multimedia ARC4 system did help me to have a larger "window", where I could move around within a larger space (a few feet) without radical changes. Otherwise, just "knowing your room" should be the goal.
At least for my room the best trick I found was to mix the mids first... Temporary master bus eq rolled off at 200 and 4k. Not perfect, but a lot more consistent between my room, my ear buds, and the dreaded car test 👍
Also a good reason why if ppl who are constantly in their earbuds, start their mix in their earbuds, can save a TON of time. Im so used to my Apple earbuds and listening to music in them, if I start my mix in there, my low mids (not subs) and overall balance are so much closer to end game than if I start in my Hifimans, Sennheisers, or Audezes. I honestly think I could do like one of the other commenters and do an entire mix with some earbuds, some mid level planars, and my car lol
Ive definetly recorded music in a high end studio and thought we got good enough sounds but when i came home and listened to my usual ns10s i realized the engineering wasnt good enough. I was fooled by the amazing acoustics and speakers of the control room :/ or maybe it was just that i wasnt used to the new room. I think the important thing is you need to reeealy know your speakers!!! Everything within reason though, I dont think -20 nulls in the low end make our jobs easier tough. Also, you cant hear what you cant hear. Sometimes you make a mix then listen to it in a more honest revealing enviroment and you hear lots of stuff you missed
Because usually the mixing engineer making the final mix (not a recording) makes most of the job on some more revealing than hyped system, e.g. some workhorse nearfields. To the point that an engineer in the studio sometimes won't even let you hear the mix on NS-10 they mixed on...
@@---pp7tqi recorded and mixed it myself. And also sent it to other mixers. But in the studio i went to and recorded it in, the speaker sounded too nice imo. They were ATC speakers, which are supposed to be very revealing, but i thought they sounded too nice and was kind of fooled by them. Untill i came home and listened to the recordings i had made with the other engineer, if you get what i mean
@@MariJu1ce You're right. That's not the first time I hear a story from a mixer telling that they were dead wrong mixing on some ATC speakers by the first time, as they made totally broken mixes which immediately turned out on NS-10 they used to know.
I actually quite push the built-in low-shelf on my monitors. I find that I have a much better sitting low-end like that. I was trying to have the most flat listening system but found it doesn't work for me. I check my mixes on NS-10s Mini (3" speakers) powered by a hi-fi Technics amp and it's great as an "Auratone check". To each his own I guess ! :D
A flat room response might sound really shrill except when one is monitoring in an anechoic chamber 😅 But I would try to correct the bass / low mid region nevertheless, especially because of room modes and reflections from close surfaces… but that’s an absolute rabbit hole
I had a hard time getting mixes to translate when using my 8in woofer studio monitors. Everything drastically improved when I switched down to a 5in speaker. I think we should emphasize that the bigger the speak the more issues it will have sounding correctly in your room. Also car speakers are typically 6.5in and considered a gold standard for mix checks.
One thing is for sure: you cannot rely only one type of feedback. Recently I was annoyed by hi-hats masking other things, so I removed a couple of dBs. And then again, and again. I listened to it on a bluetooth speaker, and the hats were non-existent. It was just my headphone being super sensitive in that region. And years before that it was an absolute hit and miss to nail low-end because it was just not in there.
@@CraigScottFrost I check all my mixes on multiple systems, even though normally they sound pretty consistent throughout everything. They're minor adjustments that need to be made from system to system so they translate better I don't have the best mastering room. And that's why I check it on multiple systems. I like to leave no stone unturned. It leaves me with a lot of happy clients.
But it is wrong. Sonarworks does not help with a bad room (or rather helps but does not fix). I have had many clients who were satisfied with bad mixes. They're still bad, and you're exploiting clients' poor hearing. (not talking about your mixes, but the logic you're using to justify ignorance)
This is why I'm content to mix on headphones I've had for years. You said it takes "a lot of time" to adjust to a monitoring situation. So why not use something you've already adjusted to? I'd been using these headphones for years before I ever started mixing. I have listened to thousands of hours of other people's music on them. There was no "adjustment period" because it was already baked in to my preexisting listening habits. They aren't flat, and they aren't even good headphones, but who cares? My mixes aren't always great, but they do always sound like I expect them to in other environments.
Frequency response isn't really the main issue, the problem is what's causing all those peaks and valleys, all time domain related stuff: strong reflections, standing waves, etc. Broadband absorbers and good positioning technique for where you seat solve most of the problems, axial/strong standing waves can be a little more tricky. Watch Eric Valentine's video on him building his new control room and get the idea, but Jesco Lohan may have better technique to solve most of those issues with great efficiency. In reality, if the decay time of low frequencies in your room are as low as 200-300 milliseconds and you don't have any severe discrepancy (let's say when you really notice a drastic change in volume from one bass note to the other, 20-30db variation) you're in pretty good shape to trust what you're listening to and ready to get used to your particular weird frequency response, just keep eyes open to translation, if it's not translating it's not good enough.
I would also add... do your mixing in a quite low volume. Especially for levelling all instruments in context is really helpful for me. And ear fatigue will also appear not so fast. Nice video! I really like to sit down on the sofa behind me from time to time as i really enjoy the boost of low frequencies there.;)
Ceiling Of Sound Pro Hyper EQ set to brown noise -4.5 dB does the trick for me. If I mix along that line it sounds good on all systems. No guesswork anymore.
To be fair I don't think there is actually a single studio with 100% flat freq response, You can 100% learn without good speakers/ room but it will undoubtedly take you way longer to get to the point were you are comfortable with what you hearing / moves to make while mixing. Also since ive gotten my room taken care of, I do not have to check my mixes anywhere. I think thats a major take away. If you have to go through 10+ setups to "check" i think thats more of a problem then you realize, plus the time you take doing so. That why people take MONTHS to mix a track.
Almost agree, but there is a little flaw. If I would build my studio from the ground up, I would spend some money to dry my room (first reflections and some cloud traps). And then focused on low end. Cuz if you have standing wave around 60-100 Hz. It’s a pain… and just uncomfortable to get used to. you’ll not gonna hear 60-100hz, or it’s gonna be boosted to much. Unfortunately it’s expensive in treatment, or you’d have to buy some sub, and place it correctly. You definitely NEED to hear 60-100 hz.
For the moment I use mostly headphones + sonarworks ("no room no problem" ) . It works, at least for me. Then I check in monitors and other headphones + on the mobiles phone. Mixes translate. For home studios most of the times this is the best solution for many reasons.
I heard on a podcast recently a quote from CLA who said (and I'm paraphrasing), "Your audio career is a journey of you and your monitors together." So, keep your monitors and learn how to make things sound good with them.
I just went from a $100 pair of m audio monitors to $600 jbl monitors and I actually got better mixes on the $100 m audio monitors. Like crazy difference. I realized again more $ doesn't mean anything in audio.
I think there is alot to be said about spending a considerable amount of time listening to reference mixes in the environment you mix in. Just like when bank employees learn in detail what a $100 bill looks like, they easily spot the counterfeit, one will recognize the flaws in their mix based on what they are use to hearing and what they are going for.
Yup, the "real" trick to getting your mixes to translate using any setup? Listen to a ton of music you like and is well mixed (and preferably within the genres you're working with) on that very same setup.
I've tried to flatten my room but I also don't care about frequency response itself. I always think about Todd Rundgren's records from Bearsville and how they had a certain sound to them. I'm not averse to having a sound.
I'm sorry but this is a BS video. Most of you guys have peaks and especially NULLS in your room that are 20-40db's, and by the time you're over 30db's (8x difference) down, you're effectively going to feel like frequencies disappear into infinity. You will not hear them at all in your mixing position. Also, it burns a lot of freaking time (time = money) to be dicking around trying to check your car, your grandmas clock radio, your JVC GIGATUBE from 2003 to see if your mix "translates". The best thing you can do is put in a lot of absorption in your room, as much as you can afford, and get atleast some decent enough monitors, like.. 500-1,000 dollar pair of studio monitors. The peak of 6db's (1.5x louder) at 140hz you can get used to, like in Jordan's room in this video, but you CAN NOT get used to 20+ db (4x louder/quieter) peaks and dips. By the time you're at huge 30+ dips, you're talking 8x or more difference in perceived volume. Sounds that should be booming will be a whisper, and sounds that should be moderate will be LOUD AND DRONING. Save yourself the headache and treat your room.
@@CrowkeeperStudios yeah whoever put this video together is definitely uneducated. Perfect example of why newbies learning off random UA-camrs is dangerous
This is a great answer. I wouldn't go as far as to call it a "BS" video, but it does leave off some much needed nuance. While it is possible to learn just about any monitoring system-given enough effort-flatter rooms are certainly faster and easier to learn. And there is also a threshold for how bad a room can be before it becomes very, very difficult to learn. In the grand scheme of things, with peaks and nulls of 6dB and under, Jordan's room isn't that bad-and is probably quite learnable without requiring excessive external referencing. (Though I'm sure he still did a lot of that to get there!) When I started working in a high end mastering room for the first time, the amount of external referencing I had to do to get my masters to translate was exactly zero 🙂 So it definitely makes a difference! That said, if you have a room that is very difficult to learn, you can get a good pair of planar magnetic headphones for about $400 these days, and that should help you understand what you're hearing for a lot less than buying pre-fabricated room treatment.
@@SonicScoop I definitely think the language is fitting. When your channel is this big (and yours is too) you have a responsibility to offer well educated information, not precisely the opposite. The fact of the matter is that many young guys will actually burn years of their life doing the run around before they realize that it's imperative that they get lots of acoustic treatment in the common cube, or nearly cube room (likely a bedroom). "my favorite UA-cam channel said it was a scam". If language like mine makes them rethink what they just watched, good, cause this video is BS 😂 When I sent tracks off to some legendary clients, I need to be certain that what I heard in the studio was right. That my judgment is the only real factor at play. When you've got huge handicaps like no room treatment it dramatically decreases the likelihood of ever being so lucky. My years of experience says, buy all the treatment you can afford!
If you know your headphones well enough, you can mix and master a Grammy-winning track in a Starbucks, but I think having a good/flattish room saves a lot of time and anguish. If your studio is "neutral", you don't have to compare your mixes in cars, or on laptops, cheap headphones etc. It's good practice to check on various devices, but having a good room to start with must help. Whether it's worth spending a fortune on room analysis and acoustic treatment is another question though. It's not going to turn you into a professional mixer overnight. It just improves the working life of professional mixers.
If you spend a couple weeks listening to music on your monitors your ears will acclimate to them and perceive relative/ballpark levels on each frequency that are "appropriate". Exactly the same case if you're not even using monitors lol Works like a charm to have a certain level of clarity, detail and dimension... Same with the lack of distortion to graduate things better... But by no means does it mean you can't pull a good mix out of something humble.
Just like in a relationship , In the start you will fight with your partner because it takes time for you to get to truly know them , meaning the --ROOM - Once you get past that faze everything becomes a lot smoother, Not perfect but a whole lot better... Agree 💯
Playing devil’s advocate, I’ve heard this same viewpoint for room correction, cheap vs expensive speakers, acoustic treatment, etc. If what you’re saying is true, and Jordan was cranking out great music, then why did he create a new room, spend all of that money, and also get a second pair of speakers if it doesn’t matter? I understand your point, truly I do…but then why did Jordan put that much money toward his studio, rather than keep what he has been using? This is something you need to address honestly. It’s a bit of an elephant in the room.
Actually, your hearing changes with your age to some extent. I think it's most apparent in higher frequencies, but maybe it might explain why people change gear over time.
Most of the money in the room is for isolation. The actual freq response of the new room is probably worse than my old one, though I haven’t measured. If you go watch my studio build videos, I explain from the beginning how I told the designer I didn’t care too much about the freq balance of the room. I was going for isolation from the rest of the house. Definitely did not need to do it, but I could, so I did.
That’s actually common sense when you think about it. It was one of the first things I realized when I started to mix, but of course we all like fancy gear and the audio companies know it. Nevertheless we have to be careful when using “cheap” stuff because there may be details that we do not perceive and will make the difference on a pro mix. 👏🤘
I use Vsx headphones. At first it was really mindblowing, but now i just mix on them trusting the sound is right. I still like my HS5 but my vsx work great to me.
I agree that if know your speakers/headphones it should enough if you have multiple sources to check your sound you will have plus or minus the same results plus the programs have a lot conflict with asio or uad or windows audio divice so its a hustle i barely use it now even the pluging made my session crash few times so it's barely possible to work with if you want to go back and forth from the sound settings in the end a little bit more bass or high will be your time signature and you will learn what mixes people like better on most speakers...
Theres truth on both sides, theres alot of people who have changed their room and it has massively improved their mixing. Dont just disregard it, to a certain extend it can help. Recording music is a different game though, good room is 2/3rds of how you get good sounds.
Personally, my room is definitely ruining my mixes. Meanwhile, the minute I sit in a proper studio setting with open studio mic recordings with optimal space and treatment, it basically sounds like instant cheating, because everything is so clear and precise at the source. Im not sure how everyone in the comments is perfectly translating their mixes from one source to another (probably by mid-forward accident), but I would rather see more colors in the room rather than assume my color blindness is sufficient when compared to reference tracks i cant fully see, either
Scam? Nah. In most cases a flat response is undesired or unobtainable. Even though your brain will do an excellent job of adjusting to a room, if you have an untreated room with a bunch of peaks, nulls and reflections everywhere your brain will need to work much harder to remove those problems from the equation. The flatter the response the easy your brain's workload. I feel trying to obtain absolute flatness is a bit unnecessary though. Nothing wrong with a bit of room tuning.
9:48 very important statement in my opinion, at least for the guys and girls that are currently hammering their room response into a flat target curve 😊
I mix in my bedroom. I've been in this room for many years. I've had the same monitors for 8 or 9 years as well, but my room has no sound treatment. There's carpet on the floor and my closet where all of my shirts and sweaters hang is completely open. This is the extent of my room's treatment. For some reason though, people like my mixes and I've been told I should raise the prices for my services. If you know your equipment and you use references, then the room doesn't matter that much. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
If you're considering only working in your own studio forever, I agree, who cares. But if your moving between studios frequently and they all sound completely different, then you won't have enough time to develop a long term memory for all those setups, right? That's the point of an established response curve ("flat") it's easier to move between different setups and you can expect a somewhat similar behavior. That's not a scam, it's the result of decades worth of research and published studies to help people build studios with similar electroacoustic behavior, so the long term memory you develop in one setup won't be completely thrown away when you go to another room. For the record, a flat response is useful when testing speakers in anechoic conditions, but in-room responses should always tilt down towards the highs. Jordan's room response isn't too far from that. Do not EQ your monitor to match a 0dB target all around or it will sound thin and unpleasant. Even that isn't a lie or a scam, it's just a misunderstood concept. I agree these things shouldn't be used blindly as excuses for bad mixes, but calling it a scam is far from educational. If you don't understand the concepts, get yourself educated first and then share a more valuable knowledge. If you do understand the concepts but disagree with them, don't call them a scam because it's disrespectful to a bunch of incredible engineers who have contributed immensely with their studies for decades and instead, guide people towards the right information. For anyone trying to understand these things, get familiar with Floyd Toole and his books, it debunks a lot of crap seen on the internets.
Always always listen to other music you like with your monitors 🙏🏻 get used to them at low volume, at high volume. Listen real good to the different frequency ranges so you understand how those monitors sound
Grab your free Mixing Cheatsheet to learn the go-to starting points for EQ and compression in heavy mixes: hardcoremusicstudio.com/mixcheatsheet
I worked in a studio with a frequency response of about +/- 2 dB from 10Hz to 20kHz. And what’s important - a flat phase response.
It is not a “scam”. It’s a blessing to work with. You can mix faster, and longer. You don’t guess, you just mix. You don’t need to check your mix in a car, you even don’t need a second pair of monitors or auratone cubes. After a full day you feel less tired.
There is empirical data: The number of my client revisions dropped significantly right away. From 5-10 to 1-3.
The argument that some guy making good songs without flat FR is weak. It means nothing. We don’t know what hoops he’s jumping through to get the mix done. If it works for him it doesn’t mean it works for anybody else.
I agree on one thing with this video - you still need to work on your skills. Everything else is an opinion of a dude that never tried the subject himself.
This ^
Time response is so overlooked. Don't aim at flat, aim at cleanest impulse response.
@@MrPureBasic it’s the same thing in a nutshell.
Yep. Anyone can mix pro-level results in any environment with any gear/software if three things are present: 1. They're experienced and know what they're doing. 2. They intimately know their monitoring environment. 3. Their monitoring environment is low or zero phase. Room FR curves not needing to be flat to mix? Sure. But a flat FR makes it a helluva lot easier. Compensating for an FR means more guesswork. I don't want guesswork when I mix. I want to know the moves I make are exactly what's occurring and what I'm hearing. That makes mix translations much more accurate. I listened to my mixes before and after correction curves and the difference startling. And guess what? In the "before" scenario, I was clueless it was even happening.
Full range , clean , and good transients - thats a good monitor system
I myself bought a buttkicker haptic device as an experiment and it changed my life when mixing low end. You can actually feel if everything is in phase and is hitting you nicely and when there is a problem you just know and don't guess. It is the equivalent of perfect frequency response room.
Getting used to a good room > getting used to a bad room
Try to record your voice in your room, esp. on some condenser from not too close distance, and it can reveal a lot how reverberant it is...
@@---pp7tq Yeah, obviously. Every room is reverberant.
I'm just saying that the point of the video is stupid. Every room must be learned, like every set of headphones must be learned.
It's still a better idea to learn a quality treated room, as it is a quality pair of headphones, than an awful room or budget headphones.
I use three things to mix and reference - one set of pro headphones, one set of crappy $10 headphones, and my car speakers. The only studio monitors I ever bought were Behringer, which I currently use for my record player. So far, I haven't been arrested by the audio police.
Thanx for self-reporting. We are on our way! 👮♂🔊👮♂🔊👮♂🚨
SHOW ME YOUR HANDS (ears)! SHOW ME YOUR HANDS NOW!
GET ON THE GROUND! You're under arrest for exceeding the loudness limit and excess frequency imbalances!
Ha! that was my strategy, only I also played it on every other crappy speaker in the house.
The crappy earbuds/headphones is bonkers amounts of gold, as soon as you got the ear for it 👌
With how many people listen mainly on basic earbuds, having something that translates as well on them as on a big system is the way to go! Extra bonus points for bass that translates to cell phone speakers too 😅
room treatment's main goal actually isn't flattening the response, in most cases. it usually is to lower the decay time of problematic parts of the spectrum that linger for longer than they should. it's more about the time domain not the frequency domain.
Decay time is one of the reasons why some people use sealed speakers like NS-10 or HS5-8. It might help with getting better translation. And most problems lie in a low end when you see a waterfall.
I also think such a big youtube channel should have mentioned this. Also, a flat curve is surely not needed but if you are missing frequencies in the spectrum or if they resonate, you need treatment.
@@---pp7tq HS5 and HS8 are bass-reflex/ported enclosure
Yes, and by reducing those resonant peaks, you get a cleaner impulse response in the room. The frequency response overall improves but the greatest overlooked benefit is the time domain response. In short, better transients, less group delays, shallower notches, better windowing on the signal overall.
mixer with 40 billion+ streams here. I have had much better results going the neutral reference route. It's definitely not a scam and has sped up my workflow dramatically. I made the jump like 2 years ago and every single part of my life got easier. Never going back. All the hit songs I mixed on my sub optimal monitoring all would have been way better and finished faster had I been working in a neutral reference monitoring setup. Get your Katana sharp kids.
I haven't watched the video yet, but here’s my 50-years-of-pro-audio opinion: it doesn’t matter what gear you use to make or mix music-period. What truly matters is knowing what you're doing and having what we call "ears."
Back in my day, we checked our mixes on everything. We’d start on NS10s, then listen on Auratones, and huge UREI monitors. And you know what? We’d jump in ANYONE'S car to check it on a cassette! Everyone threw in their two cents. After that, I might listen on my Walkman. We did this as many times as it took until EVERYONE was happy with the sound across all platforms.
My gear has changed over the years, but my process remains the same. Does it sound good on my near-fields? My cubes? In mono? On my large JBLs? From the hallway? In headphones? On my laptop or phone? If you can say "yes" to all of those, then you might be done! 🤣
Let’s be real: nobody listens to music in perfectly tuned or treated rooms through flat studio monitors. We do that for ourselves because we’re insecure audio geeks-and companies have learned how to sell their products to us. ☮💟🌍
Hallelujah!
Well that is exactly the problem, you need to check it in a sh*t-ton of different monitoring enviroments in order to compensate for poor acoustics.
@@duncan.o-vic You and The Point are on parallel lines in Euclidean space.
With good monitoring that you can trust, you only need one good source for translation. Seems like a waste of time to me to check everywhere.
Couldn't be farther from the truth.. Treated rooms makes us work much faster and better - without having to constantly double check your work in various circumstances. The misinformation on UA-cam is truly staggering, no wonder many people get confused.
Dirty audio industry secret: The shape of your ear canal can cause resonant build ups of couple of dbs worth all around the frequency spectrum and it can differ from ear to ear. This alone defeats any hope for flat response curves landing on your eardrums.
Yep, another reason to not dive into the rabbit hole!
Really good point here!
There's a big difference between "a couple of dB" and 20 dB 🙂
The recommendation should be for the studio monitors themselves to measure flat, not for the in-room response at the listening position to be flat because that is dependent on how reverberant the room is, how far the listening position is from the speakers, the speakers dispersion characteristics, and if the listener is off-axis to the speakers. The speakers themselves should be accurate in the direct listening window, with a smooth directivity.
A flat in-room response doesnt make sense unless you're nearfield, have a well treated room or have a narrow directivity speaker, and you are directly on-axis to the speaker.
I need help! I don't know why but my mixes sound tooo wide ! Like there is no mono signal going on compared to other mixes that i hear on spotify or youtube! Also the vocal seems to be to stereo even if i use mono plugins on the chain
I recorded in many high end studios before I became a sound engineer myself in the late 80's, 90's 2000's so on, and no matter who the engineer was they always did a car test. Rule of thumb at least for the guys we worked with and these guys knew their craft in and out. Taught me alot. Now with that said I really don't like the sound of car stereos. I think most of them sound terrible. I am confident enough that after I am done mixing and mastering a song that it will translate well on just about anything from EarPods, cars, those little jbl pills and even a sound bar. Here's the thing. Even though I know it will sound great out the gate I will still listen to my mixes on EarPods because I like to listen to music that way when I am not in my studio. I also have a cheap pair of those Mackie little monitors with the green ring around the speaker deals in my other business and they always sounds great. So I don't know. I see some engineers in here saying they never do a car test or listen on something else other than their studio monitors but It's like saying you only listen to music when you are in your studios and not anywhere else on anything else. I call bullshite to that one.
My room is not treated but I can get a pro level sound just by comparing my mixes to other pro released songs. Putting hundreds or thousands of hours into mixing will train your ears to know what frequencies are too little or too much in your tracks/buses and just understanding the basics like scooping 200 and 500hz on vocals and guitars and rolling off the high and low end on your guitar buses. The other day I was working on a mix with a kick and toms and noticed the kick wasn't coming through in the mix so I rolled off the low end in the toms up to 200hz and problem solved. You don't need all these super fancy plugins to get good results you just need to know how to use EQ/compression/panning/volume staging well. Things like bus clipping/snare and vocal reverb/side chain compression/vocal desser can help as well. Things I always do with panning are rhythm guitars/back up vocals harmonies hard left/right..... lead guitars/vocals center.... drum cymbals panned 20-35 degrees left and right as if drummer is on stage facing you. Also creating a template to have all your settings ready to go from the start will save you infinite time in tracking/mixing wish I realized this from the beginning.
Sounds like you're not really professionally mixing, and rather overestimating the quality of your mixes.
he said pro level sound, not that he’s a professional. btw what makes you think that? stupid comment
@@duncan.o-vic My mixes sound pretty good. I'm not trying to pay people 1K per song just to get them 5-10 percent better. Also what do you know about mixing or my mixing quality there buddy? sounds like some blind/deaf judgment if you ask me. I know who can't mix for shit..... Ross. His mixes are thin and tinny. Also there is no exact way to mix. Go listen to your favorite 10-20 hit songs. The variation in there EQing and volume staging is all over the place. There are a ton of hit songs over the years that are improperly mixed. Bush's first two records are a great example. The original record mixes were dogshit and they still had a ton of hits.
@@duncan.o-vicsounds like your doing what you say hes doing. You don't know anything like I don't cause you and I have no reference cause we both have not listened to his work.
Can't comment on your mixes since I haven't heard them... but the logic doesn't hold up. If you have a huge dip somewhere in the low end in your room, it doesn't matter what reference you compare your mix to, you simply can't hear that part of the spectrum to be able to adjust it correctly. Headphones can somewhat help, but I find that they can handle loads of subs and bass while still sounding nice. Then you check your mix somewhere else only to find it is way too boomy. Those Slate VSX headphones do a pretty good job in that department in my experience.
Yes, but what about frequency masking? I think that's the main point of having a flat frequency response: being able to hear everything clearly. If there are bumps, you might not hear the problems in the surrounding frequencies very well
But maybe I've been scammed too
Isn't that the entire subject of the video?
That’s why you check your mix on multiple sound sources
@@robjohnson5829 I heard one very respected multi-platinum sound engineer in an interview, having their own (pretty pricey) pair of speakers, probably decent enough room, and at some point they mastered the translation to the point they only needed to check the music on some BT or some Auratone-style of speaker, can't remember, and that was it. No second guessing on systems from the whole planet. But it was someone definitely knowing what they're doing too.
@@robjohnson5829 or treat your room.
@@robjohnson5829think of how much tile a pro engineer saves by not having to check on multiple systems!
Good quality set of headphones makes up for the inadequacies in an improperly treated control room.
And what to do with room modes where they cancel each other out? I mean you can't adjust to something you can't hear.
You learn them you can move your head into areas that don’t null and use headphones
Yeah, he's got no clue what he's talking about. This is pure survivor bias. That room isn't even bad.
@@richertzso i constantly move out of my sweetspot and walk around in my room and then comeback to my desk to mix ? Would be even faster to work overtime to get money for room treatment. Sry dude the biggest „scam“ in the audio industry is not fundamental audio acoustic principles. I would rather spend the money on room treatment then plugins or sample packs.
@@duncan.o-vicyep. He clearly doesnt know what a bad room can sound like or dont sound like 😂 but nice clickbait title. There a are tons of scams in this industry. Acoustic is science.
I see that specialists have no idea what "flat" really means. Equipment needs to have a flat response across all frequencies, this is one thing, but our ears are different, for our human ears to perceive a flat response we need to apply the Fletcher Munson curves (aka loudness curves).
So if we are using a monitor to have the flattest response possible, it needs to have Fletcher Munson curves and returns some curves, not a flat line.
That is why you listen at 80db?
@@johnosstreeter Do you?
@@coisasnatv yeah. Don't most do that?
The scenario were having a more flat room response is super beneficial, is when other people are going to be in that room with you listening. Because maybe you're used to your own room, but they're not going to be and things are going to sound wrong to them even though they're actually correct.
Bingo!
If I have understood correctly, the video does not claim that a linear frequency response of a monitoring system is nonsensical. It only says that a linear frequency response is not absolutely necessary to achieve a good mix result. In his opinion, more important than a linear frequency response is a very good knowledge of one's own monitoring system and the ability to translate the monitoring conditions into a good mix. And even more important are a good ear and very good knowledge of his plug-ins, DAW operation, etc.
Fundamental room acoustics corrections are also not called into question here. It's just claimed that you shouldn't invest so much time and money in optimising the room acoustics. Here too, the above-mentioned skills and lots of practical exercises are more important than the last 10% improvement in room acoustics technology.
I think this view is correct because it focusses on the essential things. On the ear, the knowledge and the feeling for the music and not on the latest technology that ‘you absolutely have to have’ in order to achieve a good result.
Good equipment is great and a certain technical standard is essential for professional results, but once this level has been reached, other factors are simply more important ...
I started home recording/mixing 3 years ago.....sort of. The first year, I spent just learning and getting comfortable with my DAW. The second year was spent buying *way* too many 'magic plugins' and watching demos.This year, I signed up for a mixing course that provided stems for dozens of songs - and I *actually* started mixing. I've learned so much more *doing* mixing. In the process, I'm learning my room.
In hindsight, I wish I had just focused all of my energy mixing right from the start.
Man, I’m so glad I caught your video! I live in a townhouse, larger than average. I record and mix in a room that has my AC/Heat Pump in the closet. I definitely need to absorb some of the slap in the room but I’m lazy. I’ve been thinking I need to get some treatment on the walls and buy new studio monitors. I’ve been watching a ton of videos and was just about to pull the trigger on spending a ton of money. The logic you speak makes perfect sense. I am very used to my room and know what frequencies to compensate for in my mixes. I actually use my preset templates. The internet makes me feel like I’m missing out on perfection if I don’t do what everyone else is doing. Thank you for the video, it just pulled my heads out of the clouds.
Solid advice here. One thing - based on mixing in a Nortward acoutics FTB control room for more than 10 years now: a truly flay mixing room is a joy to work in. You actually here what is really there. Still, as you said, you need to get enough time in to get familiar.
The real scam is in all this acoustic treatment, especially basstrap stuff. If you understand the science and know how much work gets into actually getting the lowend under control (within a +/- 3dB range in the 30-300Hz range), you understand a few basstraps or superchunck corners really do not do the trick.
Also, the measurement is tricky: just measuring a the ideal listening position is not enough. Just move your head 20cm and the situation can change drastically in a not well built room.
Last but not least: most "professionally treated" rooms are actually far from great rooms. Unless the CR is really large, chances are the 30-300Hz is also all over the place.
How in the world are bass traps scams? I mean there are scam ones out there, but the concept of controlling excess ringing in a room is just plain science. Fluid dynamics, and its not even subjective. Only subjective part is where you might think "good enough" is
@@pipelineaudio-p8d exactly, and to really get lowend under control you typically need to give up WAY more volume than advertised.
If you have really dug into the science- which is not that straightforward for small rooms - you would understand what the scam is here.
To give you an idea: in my FTB control room (designed by Northward Acoustics) there is 90cm of depth just on my back wall to get the lowend under control. And this incorporates both absorbent as well as membrane systems.
Really, a couple of 10cm deep “basstraps” will hardly do anything at all to get lowend modes under control.
So true! When I got my first set of monitors I went a bit in the rabbit hole, but didn't expect much. Got a measurement mic, used a free software (paid ones seemed like a reap-off), spent a weekend learning how to calibrate things and measure my room, etc. Wasted time? not at all! I learned a lot! Loved it, in fact! Gained more of an intuition for what/how to listen to my speaker setup in my room, and about acoustics in general. But that's the thing, perfect is literally impossible, so just manage your own expectations. Having an idea and getting used to listen and how your setup behaves is waaaay more valuable than any bit of foam or anything else you can buy, especially learning to listen, which is a never ending practice imo. Thanks for sharing this :D.
I also got confused at first but then I understood it:
- Flat frequency response: the target for the speakers when they are measured in an anechoic room (or measured "on axis" in Spinorama)
- Harman frequency response: a non-flat frequency response that you will get in a room but that sounds "flat" by human ears after the room is acoustically well treated (its also the prefered response curve by the majority in Headphones).
- Frequencies Decay time: the amount of time that a sound takes to be completely silent in a room after suddenly stopped playing, it should be around 300-400 ms in low frequencies).
That's it. The final response curve in a professional studio is not flat, its "smooth", with no big dips or spikes, but is also deviated downwards in the High frequencies.
Great video. My studio is not perfect, far from tbh. What’s more important is the things you point out, like knowing how your room sounds. Another important thing I want to add, is ear training. If you don’t know what frequencies you are hearing, then it’s likely your mix will sound bad. I use both monitors and great headphones to mix and master songs. And near field monitors work perfect for any room. Like the name implies, you have to sit in front of them from a very short distance, like 3 feet or less, which results in direct sound without bouncing frequencies.
I've been saying the same thing for years now. New engineers run out to do the "Car test" to check their mix... The answer is in their face, they have hundreds/thousands of hours behind the wheel and know what a good mix sounds like in
that space. Listen to records you know and love in your studio and render the car test obsolete!
Complete Nulls in the mix position are a real problem.
Then you're sat in the wrong place! Acoustics Insider. 😎
I really can't stress enough how much I appreciate the honest "no bullshit" approach of this channel! I feel like there is so much marketing going on around audio and especially mixing/mastering that makes it way too easy to fall into the trap of spending more and more money on the next "big thing". On top of a lot of people who seem to have no idea what they are actually talking about on UA-cam or social media in general.
Thanks a lot for debunking a lot of the myths that are out there!
Great video and conversation here!
Because we often don't get to "know our room" in live sound, we gravitate toward tuning our systems to target curves. I try to reproduce "my room" rather than a flat room from gig to gig on different systems and locations.
My room is lying to me, my speakers are lying to me, my headphones are lying to me, my car stereo is lying to me… but somewhere in the middle of all that is the truth, and it usually turns out ok if you know what you’re doing and have decent ears.
Thank you very much for video, it is eyeopening! I'm from Europe. Your video also looks fantastic, so analog. Can you please tell, what camera did you use in recording this video. I would be very greatful. Thank you very much, wish you all the best!
Oh my, I can't agree more... It has always seemed logical to me. You get used to something, you listen to music on it so you know how to set the levels. But yeah, everyone is always like - you need the best gear, best room, best blah blah.... I make music on my ipad and mix in my headphones. If I really care about the mix, my method is asking other people to listen, having like "second ears". You helped me to relax... I love being a bedroom producer, a mom making music on a kitchen table or in the bed where my baby is sleeping, these mind hacks are so freeing for people like me, thank you
I 100% agree that knowing your room is key to getting good mixes...I 100% completely disagree with you that room treatment and correction software are minimally effective...investing in making the room as good as possible makes knowing the room a much easier to accomplish, and makes what you're hearing that much more accurate...
ok im willing to agree with you here, but what about a baseline for a studio speaker, what do you recommend as a baseline? 10 x 12 room. I have jbl 305p and I have to sit really far back to hear the bass.
....there is no such thing as a perfect room !!! ...as soon as the temperature or humidity changes or there is one more person inside, everything changes again... thanx for the video ;-)
Yeah but you're talking about irrelevant changes, No room is perfect, but most rooms are far worse than that measurement.
I adjusted my computer audio with EQ for my headphones and I have very flat sound. I tested my mix in the real treated professional studio with monitors and sound were very close, if not the same. I like it.
Nice one Roelof. It all make perfect sense. Love your comedian talents by the way 😂🤘
I started mixing on Kliptsch bookshelf speakers.
My mixes from back then sound pretty much the same. Why? Cause I knew them. Same with the cans I use now. Are Senn HD650s "flatter"? maybe, but I don't know them, I know my Ollo's.
I'd bet a fair amount of good beer that the frequency response curves of our ears differ more than our rooms.
Your ears change everyday seems like to me, key is to get reasonably flat enough, and really know your speakers. I dont think -20 nulls or boosts make our jobs easier tough.
That's the reason why people drunk at parties demand from you to play music louder. Mixing under influence is a bit like with cars...
totally agree, it's all about the references that you hear in the same audio environment.. I realized after 13 years of making music that some of my best mixes were actually made on my first shitty speakers I used to have a long time ago. After switching to real studio monitors my mixes became more boring, even though I learned more about mixing. I still use to check all my mixes in my earpods, where I listen to 95% of the music anyway
Definitely lots of good points. It's good to treat a room and fix issues in it, but there is only so much you can do, without building a perfect room with an acoustic engineer. I've done my best mixes in a 10ft x 10ft (ish) asymmetrical room, where I've been the last 5 years. Definitely not the best place, but can't set up anywhere else in my appartment. Do the best I can on the monitors and when I want to make sure the details are fine I slap on my headphones. (and that was another learning curve with the 7506s where everything is super bright, until you test it somewhere else) But once you make the connection between the mixes in other sound systems and how your room or headphones are affecting the end result, it's a big eureka moment and you start compensating correctly
You'll see a lot less room interaction when you monitor at low monitor volume. The NS10 has a sharp rolloff below 200hz or so, so the room is actually supporting the speaker somewhat.
I am into acoustic treatment big time. Getting a flat room isn’t the best solution for me. I tune my room so I can hear the bass guitar a certain way in particular mixes. Sounds weird, but it’s the best way I’ve found to both use measurements and my ears at the same time (not just one or the other)
I have light treatment in my room & my mixes were always thin because my room had so much lower mid range I would cut it out of my tracks. When I bought Sound ID it changed my mixes . I don't have a flat response but I also don't have +10 db lower mid that don't really exist. You don't need a perfect room or expensive monitors but some balance helps!
That's exactly what I think! There's no such thing as a perfectly flat response in the audio industry. Every piece of gear has its own frequency response, and it’s never truly flat. As someone else mentioned in the comments, every ear is different, and due to the shape of our ear canals resonant frequencies between 2 kHz and 7 kHz are perceived differently, so the way we hear sound is constantly changing. I believe that reducing reflections in the room (essentially avoiding excessive reverb) and really understanding your tools and equipment are the most important steps to developing a unique way of perceiving sound and making informed decisions based on long-term experience!
It is wishfull thinking. While you can get used to frequency curves, you don't get used to narrow resonances and nulls.
The example measurement is actually pretty flat for an untreated room.
We hear a lot about exceptional mixing engineers who made it, but we don't hear about other 90% who think it must be something wrong with them if they can't make a good mix in their untreated rooms. Survivor bias.
@@duncan.o-vic That's a really good point you have made. I didn't see it that way, thank you!
you need your speakers to sound like a set of giant headphones .
to get to this you need
1/ a treated room for bass / LF energy and mid to high reflections
2. likely a subwoofer - that hipasses mains at 90 hz (if the mains are 2 way ) to unload their cones and focus the midranges transient detail
3/ a non reflective desk - they comb up the 500 to 800 range
4/ a ceiling and side cloud to kill early reflections and focus the image
5/ a master monitor eq to remove any non positional specfic boost resonances and all
nulls need to be minor to be workroundable ( assess with REQ or Sonarworks and then use physical EQ and treatment to fine tune )
6/ monitors pointing hieght and angle are correct
7/ hearing assessment and master eq (that is bypassable for visitors ) that corrects for hearing issues
if you do this , your monitors will sound like the music is in your head and inside you and you will mix very well , with punch and frequency richness. aim for 76 db spl when near field mixing
I totally agree with you here, the more time I spend using and mixing in my listening environment, the better I get and the better my mixes translates.
I'm wondering about the pro studio though. Are they just trying to get rid of most reflections in the control/mix rooms or do they also aim for a flat frequency response? Because if they do, why? So that mix engineers can move between rooms or studios and work there without having to spend too much time to learn the new room? Or is it one of these things "that you have to do" to claim that you have a pro studio?
Some smaller speakers like iLouds when corrected might help you in getting more similar sound in different rooms, indeed.
Very good points, that actually totally apply to headphones. But things get a little more complicated if your room isn't sufficiently flat, when customers come in to listen to orient a mix...
You can adapt to a crooked frequency response, because it is static and it affects every sound in the same way. What you cannot do is to adapt to the dacay of frequencies over time. The brain does not know that the muddyness of a bass is caused by a kick drum that is still decaying in the room, while actually not being there any more in the actual music. The result will be that the engineer will carve away too much muddy frequencies instead of leaving it alone. This is just one example, this general concept applies to every instrument. This is why room treatment is the most important thing to do or to use headphones that work well in the time domain, ie. upper end planar headphones.
A couple of near filed iLouds at low volume has really helped me with my crappy room. I'm use to how they sound and I have plenty of reference tools. The trip to the car usually reveals minimal adjustments needed if any.
Eye opening, no doubt, or should I say ear opening 😃… but still, isn’t there a bare minimum level of expectations from a room that can be used to create mixes? What would those be or is that Idea also snake oil? My mixing spot for example, has a curtain on one side and a cupboard on the other. Is that something one can ever get used to?
I think your comment around 6 minutes is the reason why I am a big fan of calibration tools... If I can create a standardized baseline in any room I'm in (easy to do with calibration software) it is much easier to get to work without having to "take time" to learn a new environment (which is literally not possible in a lot of timeframes).
Am I wrong if I say that worst case you have a favourite album with your known favourite sound and always use it as reference if the acoustic of your room is bad?
Yes you can become a custom to your setup. Otherwise I know the frequency response of my headphones and know to pay close attention to that area to make sure I get it right
I recently moved to another place and left my monitors behind due to the lack of space for now. I've been mixing for a while now on a sound bar with a subwoofer... When mixing on the monitors i always got bass heavy mixes and had to correct them. My first mix on the sound bar system was thin... but from that mix until now my low end way better and punchy and I like my mixes more now. As he said i think is a matter of getting used to it. I know how music sounds like on my headphones, on my phone speakers, and in my car so I sue them just for reference because I know how music sounds like on the sound bar system. For me there is no need of any extra cash spending trips, just listen to a lot of music on what you have and on what you are used to, and as long as you are not in an empty room that echoes I think it's okay to mix. And keep in mind that the casual consumer doesn't listen in a good room, monitors, expensive headphones and theatre systems.
Difference is with sonarworks you won’t need 4 sets of monitors to make the mix translate across sources.
I’m using, and there’s no question it works. Very well even.
Actually, e.g. Paul Third claims that Arc 4 compared to Sonarworks doesn't have so big phase distortion.
@@---pp7tq Havent noticed, though I'm only using the headphone edition. maybe thats different?
I'm more of a hobby mixing engineer, mainly mixing my own music. I mainly use my goto headphones for recording producing, I listen to them everyday and know how something should sound there. But most importantly, everything sounds great to me on them. This is so important,because producing music just so much more fun when you like what you hear. When I started recording I nought some cheaper monitors, and I was disappointed because everything sounded so boring. I was almost close to quitting. Then I switched in my headphones and I was like actually thats pretty cool and my motivation increased by 200%. Now my skills and ears are so much better but I didn't felt the need to upgrade my Monitor system. Of course when I finish my mixes I reference on every system I can find. What I wanted to say: making music should be fun. Everyone is so obsessed now with whats right and what's wrong and how to get the best mixes. Just enjoy the process, do what works best for you and you will get better results over time.
You are correct. I WILL say, the IK Multimedia ARC4 system did help me to have a larger "window", where I could move around within a larger space (a few feet) without radical changes. Otherwise, just "knowing your room" should be the goal.
At least for my room the best trick I found was to mix the mids first... Temporary master bus eq rolled off at 200 and 4k. Not perfect, but a lot more consistent between my room, my ear buds, and the dreaded car test 👍
What a great video, very true! I think we have all tried the excuse "Its my room" at some stage but the reality is get used to your room and mix!
Also a good reason why if ppl who are constantly in their earbuds, start their mix in their earbuds, can save a TON of time. Im so used to my Apple earbuds and listening to music in them, if I start my mix in there, my low mids (not subs) and overall balance are so much closer to end game than if I start in my Hifimans, Sennheisers, or Audezes.
I honestly think I could do like one of the other commenters and do an entire mix with some earbuds, some mid level planars, and my car lol
Ive definetly recorded music in a high end studio and thought we got good enough sounds but when i came home and listened to my usual ns10s i realized the engineering wasnt good enough. I was fooled by the amazing acoustics and speakers of the control room :/ or maybe it was just that i wasnt used to the new room. I think the important thing is you need to reeealy know your speakers!!! Everything within reason though, I dont think -20 nulls in the low end make our jobs easier tough. Also, you cant hear what you cant hear. Sometimes you make a mix then listen to it in a more honest revealing enviroment and you hear lots of stuff you missed
Because usually the mixing engineer making the final mix (not a recording) makes most of the job on some more revealing than hyped system, e.g. some workhorse nearfields. To the point that an engineer in the studio sometimes won't even let you hear the mix on NS-10 they mixed on...
@@---pp7tqi recorded and mixed it myself. And also sent it to other mixers. But in the studio i went to and recorded it in, the speaker sounded too nice imo. They were ATC speakers, which are supposed to be very revealing, but i thought they sounded too nice and was kind of fooled by them. Untill i came home and listened to the recordings i had made with the other engineer, if you get what i mean
@@MariJu1ce You're right. That's not the first time I hear a story from a mixer telling that they were dead wrong mixing on some ATC speakers by the first time, as they made totally broken mixes which immediately turned out on NS-10 they used to know.
I actually quite push the built-in low-shelf on my monitors. I find that I have a much better sitting low-end like that. I was trying to have the most flat listening system but found it doesn't work for me. I check my mixes on NS-10s Mini (3" speakers) powered by a hi-fi Technics amp and it's great as an "Auratone check".
To each his own I guess ! :D
A flat room response might sound really shrill except when one is monitoring in an anechoic chamber 😅
But I would try to correct the bass / low mid region nevertheless, especially because of room modes and reflections from close surfaces… but that’s an absolute rabbit hole
I have some select songs I listen to before mixing and that works in any room.
I had a hard time getting mixes to translate when using my 8in woofer studio monitors. Everything drastically improved when I switched down to a 5in speaker. I think we should emphasize that the bigger the speak the more issues it will have sounding correctly in your room.
Also car speakers are typically 6.5in and considered a gold standard for mix checks.
I’m not really surprised to see that huge 150-300 bump in Jordan’s room. I’ve noticed his mixes tend to be pretty thin in the low-mids.
Zing!
True though
One thing is for sure: you cannot rely only one type of feedback. Recently I was annoyed by hi-hats masking other things, so I removed a couple of dBs. And then again, and again. I listened to it on a bluetooth speaker, and the hats were non-existent. It was just my headphone being super sensitive in that region. And years before that it was an absolute hit and miss to nail low-end because it was just not in there.
Bro, this is exactly what I said in one of my videos and sonarworks just had to clap back and comment on it.
What did they say
@@CraigScottFrost I check all my mixes on multiple systems, even though normally they sound pretty consistent throughout everything. They're minor adjustments that need to be made from system to system so they translate better
I don't have the best mastering room. And that's why I check it on multiple systems. I like to leave no stone unturned.
It leaves me with a lot of happy clients.
But it is wrong. Sonarworks does not help with a bad room (or rather helps but does not fix).
I have had many clients who were satisfied with bad mixes. They're still bad, and you're exploiting clients' poor hearing. (not talking about your mixes, but the logic you're using to justify ignorance)
@@duncan.o-vic I think you're misunderstanding me. I said sonarworks does not help in a small room
It may help in a larger room
And it's word of mouth from happy clients that gets you more business
Regardless of the mix
This is why I'm content to mix on headphones I've had for years. You said it takes "a lot of time" to adjust to a monitoring situation. So why not use something you've already adjusted to? I'd been using these headphones for years before I ever started mixing. I have listened to thousands of hours of other people's music on them. There was no "adjustment period" because it was already baked in to my preexisting listening habits. They aren't flat, and they aren't even good headphones, but who cares? My mixes aren't always great, but they do always sound like I expect them to in other environments.
Frequency response isn't really the main issue, the problem is what's causing all those peaks and valleys, all time domain related stuff: strong reflections, standing waves, etc. Broadband absorbers and good positioning technique for where you seat solve most of the problems, axial/strong standing waves can be a little more tricky. Watch Eric Valentine's video on him building his new control room and get the idea, but Jesco Lohan may have better technique to solve most of those issues with great efficiency. In reality, if the decay time of low frequencies in your room are as low as 200-300 milliseconds and you don't have any severe discrepancy (let's say when you really notice a drastic change in volume from one bass note to the other, 20-30db variation) you're in pretty good shape to trust what you're listening to and ready to get used to your particular weird frequency response, just keep eyes open to translation, if it's not translating it's not good enough.
I would also add... do your mixing in a quite low volume. Especially for levelling all instruments in context is really helpful for me. And ear fatigue will also appear not so fast. Nice video! I really like to sit down on the sofa behind me from time to time as i really enjoy the boost of low frequencies there.;)
Ceiling Of Sound Pro Hyper EQ set to brown noise -4.5 dB does the trick for me. If I mix along that line it sounds good on all systems. No guesswork anymore.
Where did jordan go?
He had a video saying that he was burnt out and he would be handing more things over to his instructors and that's exactly what's happening.
@@Jazzguitar00 ah but he has a second channel right?
To be fair I don't think there is actually a single studio with 100% flat freq response, You can 100% learn without good speakers/ room but it will undoubtedly take you way longer to get to the point were you are comfortable with what you hearing / moves to make while mixing. Also since ive gotten my room taken care of, I do not have to check my mixes anywhere. I think thats a major take away. If you have to go through 10+ setups to "check" i think thats more of a problem then you realize, plus the time you take doing so. That why people take MONTHS to mix a track.
Almost agree, but there is a little flaw. If I would build my studio from the ground up, I would spend some money to dry my room (first reflections and some cloud traps). And then focused on low end. Cuz if you have standing wave around 60-100 Hz. It’s a pain… and just uncomfortable to get used to. you’ll not gonna hear 60-100hz, or it’s gonna be boosted to much. Unfortunately it’s expensive in treatment, or you’d have to buy some sub, and place it correctly. You definitely NEED to hear 60-100 hz.
Great explanation! Thanks!
For the moment I use mostly headphones + sonarworks ("no room no problem" ) . It works, at least for me. Then I check in monitors and other headphones + on the mobiles phone. Mixes translate. For home studios most of the times this is the best solution for many reasons.
I heard on a podcast recently a quote from CLA who said (and I'm paraphrasing), "Your audio career is a journey of you and your monitors together." So, keep your monitors and learn how to make things sound good with them.
Yes, I won’t work anywhere without ns10s now.
I just went from a $100 pair of m audio monitors to $600 jbl monitors and I actually got better mixes on the $100 m audio monitors. Like crazy difference. I realized again more $ doesn't mean anything in audio.
I think there is alot to be said about spending a considerable amount of time listening to reference mixes in the environment you mix in. Just like when bank employees learn in detail what a $100 bill looks like, they easily spot the counterfeit, one will recognize the flaws in their mix based on what they are use to hearing and what they are going for.
Yup, the "real" trick to getting your mixes to translate using any setup? Listen to a ton of music you like and is well mixed (and preferably within the genres you're working with) on that very same setup.
Did you get your channel hacked? Who is this guy? I've never seen you say anything this ridiculous
I've tried to flatten my room but I also don't care about frequency response itself. I always think about Todd Rundgren's records from Bearsville and how they had a certain sound to them. I'm not averse to having a sound.
I'm sorry but this is a BS video.
Most of you guys have peaks and especially NULLS in your room that are 20-40db's, and by the time you're over 30db's (8x difference) down, you're effectively going to feel like frequencies disappear into infinity. You will not hear them at all in your mixing position.
Also, it burns a lot of freaking time (time = money) to be dicking around trying to check your car, your grandmas clock radio, your JVC GIGATUBE from 2003 to see if your mix "translates". The best thing you can do is put in a lot of absorption in your room, as much as you can afford, and get atleast some decent enough monitors, like.. 500-1,000 dollar pair of studio monitors.
The peak of 6db's (1.5x louder) at 140hz you can get used to, like in Jordan's room in this video, but you CAN NOT get used to 20+ db (4x louder/quieter) peaks and dips. By the time you're at huge 30+ dips, you're talking 8x or more difference in perceived volume. Sounds that should be booming will be a whisper, and sounds that should be moderate will be LOUD AND DRONING.
Save yourself the headache and treat your room.
@@CrowkeeperStudios Amen.
@@CrowkeeperStudios yeah whoever put this video together is definitely uneducated. Perfect example of why newbies learning off random UA-camrs is dangerous
Exactly
This is a great answer. I wouldn't go as far as to call it a "BS" video, but it does leave off some much needed nuance.
While it is possible to learn just about any monitoring system-given enough effort-flatter rooms are certainly faster and easier to learn. And there is also a threshold for how bad a room can be before it becomes very, very difficult to learn.
In the grand scheme of things, with peaks and nulls of 6dB and under, Jordan's room isn't that bad-and is probably quite learnable without requiring excessive external referencing. (Though I'm sure he still did a lot of that to get there!)
When I started working in a high end mastering room for the first time, the amount of external referencing I had to do to get my masters to translate was exactly zero 🙂 So it definitely makes a difference!
That said, if you have a room that is very difficult to learn, you can get a good pair of planar magnetic headphones for about $400 these days, and that should help you understand what you're hearing for a lot less than buying pre-fabricated room treatment.
@@SonicScoop I definitely think the language is fitting. When your channel is this big (and yours is too) you have a responsibility to offer well educated information, not precisely the opposite.
The fact of the matter is that many young guys will actually burn years of their life doing the run around before they realize that it's imperative that they get lots of acoustic treatment in the common cube, or nearly cube room (likely a bedroom). "my favorite UA-cam channel said it was a scam".
If language like mine makes them rethink what they just watched, good, cause this video is BS 😂
When I sent tracks off to some legendary clients, I need to be certain that what I heard in the studio was right. That my judgment is the only real factor at play. When you've got huge handicaps like no room treatment it dramatically decreases the likelihood of ever being so lucky. My years of experience says, buy all the treatment you can afford!
If you know your headphones well enough, you can mix and master a Grammy-winning track in a Starbucks, but I think having a good/flattish room saves a lot of time and anguish. If your studio is "neutral", you don't have to compare your mixes in cars, or on laptops, cheap headphones etc. It's good practice to check on various devices, but having a good room to start with must help. Whether it's worth spending a fortune on room analysis and acoustic treatment is another question though. It's not going to turn you into a professional mixer overnight. It just improves the working life of professional mixers.
If you spend a couple weeks listening to music on your monitors your ears will acclimate to them and perceive relative/ballpark levels on each frequency that are "appropriate". Exactly the same case if you're not even using monitors lol
Works like a charm to have a certain level of clarity, detail and dimension... Same with the lack of distortion to graduate things better... But by no means does it mean you can't pull a good mix out of something humble.
Just like in a relationship , In the start you will fight with your partner because it takes time for you to get to truly know them , meaning the --ROOM - Once you get past that faze everything becomes a lot smoother, Not perfect but a whole lot better... Agree 💯
Playing devil’s advocate, I’ve heard this same viewpoint for room correction, cheap vs expensive speakers, acoustic treatment, etc. If what you’re saying is true, and Jordan was cranking out great music, then why did he create a new room, spend all of that money, and also get a second pair of speakers if it doesn’t matter?
I understand your point, truly I do…but then why did Jordan put that much money toward his studio, rather than keep what he has been using? This is something you need to address honestly. It’s a bit of an elephant in the room.
Actually, your hearing changes with your age to some extent. I think it's most apparent in higher frequencies, but maybe it might explain why people change gear over time.
@@---pp7tqGood point! 👍
Most of the money in the room is for isolation. The actual freq response of the new room is probably worse than my old one, though I haven’t measured. If you go watch my studio build videos, I explain from the beginning how I told the designer I didn’t care too much about the freq balance of the room. I was going for isolation from the rest of the house.
Definitely did not need to do it, but I could, so I did.
So, it isnt necessary at all, but a flatter response will be better and easier to work with.
That’s actually common sense when you think about it. It was one of the first things I realized when I started to mix, but of course we all like fancy gear and the audio companies know it. Nevertheless we have to be careful when using “cheap” stuff because there may be details that we do not perceive and will make the difference on a pro mix. 👏🤘
I use Vsx headphones. At first it was really mindblowing, but now i just mix on them trusting the sound is right. I still like my HS5 but my vsx work great to me.
I agree that if know your speakers/headphones it should enough if you have multiple sources to check your sound you will have plus or minus the same results plus the programs have a lot conflict with asio or uad or windows audio divice so its a hustle i barely use it now even the pluging made my session crash few times so it's barely possible to work with if you want to go back and forth from the sound settings in the end a little bit more bass or high will be your time signature and you will learn what mixes people like better on most speakers...
Theres truth on both sides, theres alot of people who have changed their room and it has massively improved their mixing. Dont just disregard it, to a certain extend it can help. Recording music is a different game though, good room is 2/3rds of how you get good sounds.
My point is: flat freq responce is a myth, but you need to have panels because nobody can beat basic physics
Personally, my room is definitely ruining my mixes. Meanwhile, the minute I sit in a proper studio setting with open studio mic recordings with optimal space and treatment, it basically sounds like instant cheating, because everything is so clear and precise at the source. Im not sure how everyone in the comments is perfectly translating their mixes from one source to another (probably by mid-forward accident), but I would rather see more colors in the room rather than assume my color blindness is sufficient when compared to reference tracks i cant fully see, either
Scam? Nah. In most cases a flat response is undesired or unobtainable. Even though your brain will do an excellent job of adjusting to a room, if you have an untreated room with a bunch of peaks, nulls and reflections everywhere your brain will need to work much harder to remove those problems from the equation. The flatter the response the easy your brain's workload. I feel trying to obtain absolute flatness is a bit unnecessary though. Nothing wrong with a bit of room tuning.
9:48 very important statement in my opinion, at least for the guys and girls that are currently hammering their room response into a flat target curve 😊
I mix in my bedroom. I've been in this room for many years. I've had the same monitors for 8 or 9 years as well, but my room has no sound treatment. There's carpet on the floor and my closet where all of my shirts and sweaters hang is completely open. This is the extent of my room's treatment.
For some reason though, people like my mixes and I've been told I should raise the prices for my services.
If you know your equipment and you use references, then the room doesn't matter that much. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
If you're considering only working in your own studio forever, I agree, who cares. But if your moving between studios frequently and they all sound completely different, then you won't have enough time to develop a long term memory for all those setups, right? That's the point of an established response curve ("flat") it's easier to move between different setups and you can expect a somewhat similar behavior. That's not a scam, it's the result of decades worth of research and published studies to help people build studios with similar electroacoustic behavior, so the long term memory you develop in one setup won't be completely thrown away when you go to another room.
For the record, a flat response is useful when testing speakers in anechoic conditions, but in-room responses should always tilt down towards the highs. Jordan's room response isn't too far from that. Do not EQ your monitor to match a 0dB target all around or it will sound thin and unpleasant. Even that isn't a lie or a scam, it's just a misunderstood concept.
I agree these things shouldn't be used blindly as excuses for bad mixes, but calling it a scam is far from educational. If you don't understand the concepts, get yourself educated first and then share a more valuable knowledge. If you do understand the concepts but disagree with them, don't call them a scam because it's disrespectful to a bunch of incredible engineers who have contributed immensely with their studies for decades and instead, guide people towards the right information. For anyone trying to understand these things, get familiar with Floyd Toole and his books, it debunks a lot of crap seen on the internets.
Always always listen to other music you like with your monitors 🙏🏻 get used to them at low volume, at high volume. Listen real good to the different frequency ranges so you understand how those monitors sound
Also flat rooms are just the best because you can walk into any professional studio and not have to get used to a new room