Comments

busterkeaton wrote on 3/17/2005, 11:42 AM
Mario,

No need to get defensive, BillyBoy likes to have a signal to noise ratio of about 1:1. Once you realize that you can just tune it out.
Spot|DSE wrote on 3/17/2005, 11:47 AM
Unfortunately, soundcards and good monitors go together. It's a little like back in the day when we had video cards that would convert the DV back to analog for us, we needed a good vid card like a Raptor or something like that. Today, we can achieve quality fairly generically, but on the audio side of things...we need better. You can squeak by with a CreativeLabs or similar card, but don't expect to record through one. The FW410 that you got has very good sound, one of the best in it's class. For monitoring, the only thing that's not so good about the lower end cards compared to an Echo, M-Audio, or similar midlevel card, is that you won't be able to hear noise, you're limited to 48k (in most cases) and the card is processing audio to analog, so you might not be hearing the real sound. (what's going to be rendered to file) If I had to do it on a tight budget, I'd do what you did, build the front end first, because you can always post elsewhere, you can also borrow better monitors if you need them, but you need the soundcard to record and monitor through no matter what. With a good front end, you can do anything.
Wnen I was working on my first solo record, I couldn't afford to get all the gear I wanted/needed. So, I bought a John Hardy M1, because I knew it was the best preamp money could by at any price. I used a fairly cheap Shure SM96 to record with. Later, I bought BK 4001 mics, and those became my standards. Later, I bought some Genelec monitors. All of this took about 2 years to acquire. Then my productions started to really sing because I could hear everything, I owned everything, and my work product quality went up significantly. Not long after, I got a gig with Disney for the "Squanto" movie. From there, all my gear started getting better. Start with the front end, you'll be happier, IMO. (Sound card and mic)
MH_Stevens wrote on 3/17/2005, 11:48 AM
For editing studio must have (IMO) powered near-field speakers. The best are the Yamaha NS2000 with the berillium coils - if you can find them in the US.
They are available in Japan.
John_Cline wrote on 3/17/2005, 11:48 AM
Billy,

This thread was progressing quite nicely until you decided to add your 1/4 cents worth. Your post was intended to do nothing but push some buttons by, once again, expressing your animosity toward professionals. Look, we all know you aren't a professional and your "real world" is incredibly different than mine. And, believe it or not, virtually everything you see on TV or hear on CD was produced on professional equipment by professionals, not by an amateur with a Walmart TV and Soundblaster speakers.

If you don't have something constructive to say, stay out of the thread. When we want the consumer, "end user" opinion about something, we'll ask you.

John
Rednroll wrote on 3/17/2005, 11:51 AM
BB, makes some valid points. If you're doing serious audio work, you actually need a multi-monitor setup of at least 3 speaker monitor setups to increase your chances you audio mixes translate to the real world. A minimum setup should include 1.) A mid size near field monitor with an 8" to 10" woofer, where most of your audio work will be performed listening to these speakers, I don't prefer a sub added to this set of monitors, but mileage may vary. 2.) A larger far field set of monitors 12"-15" woofer, with a sub-woofer. 3.) a small cheap set of speaker 4"-6" woofer.

As I mentioned most of your work will be done on monitor setup #1. To see how the audio mix translates on a system with a subwoofer, listening in a far field perspective, switch to monitor setup#2. Having the sub connected on setup#1 can actually be a worse case scenario than having one. Why? Low frequencies can reproduce what is referred to as a "Standing wave". A standing wave occurs at these lower frequencies, due to the sound reflections between walls, where at particular low frequencies the spacing of the walls may make that particular frequency resonate in phase with itself. This causes peaks and valleys in different locations in the room where you are listening to your mix. So you may be in a valley of a standing wave, thus you will increase the bass frequencies to make up for this void and your mixes will translate to the real world of having too much bass because you over compensated for the void, although it sounded great in your studio. If you happen to be sitting where a peak is located, due to the standing wave, you will do the opposite and reduce the bass frequencies, because of the extra bass you're hearing, therefore your mix will translate to the real world of having too little bass. This is one of the major factors a room needs to be acoustically setup, and is the use for a "Bass trap". Monitor setup#3 is mainly there to see how your mix translates to someone listening to it on a cheap set of speakers. It might sound great on your expensive set of speakers in monitor setup#1, but put that on a cheap set of speakers and it makes them bottom out and distort the signal, then your mix isn't as good as you thought it was.

Another good visual tool is a "Spectral Analyzer". This allows you to LOOK at the audio signal before it even reaches your studio monitor and amp setup. You should use the spectral analyzer by first playing audio that has been done elsewhere that you know sounds good and is simular in content as the audio you're working with. You then look at that reference audio on the spectral analyzer and capture the spectral curve. You then play your mix and look at the spectral curve of it and see how it compares. You may find your mix has some spikes or valleys in the spectral curve that your monitoring system didn't reproduce accurately and you can address that issue with a little EQ at that frequency.

I use to work at a recording studio where I was an engineer during the week and taught classes there on the weekends. In that studio we had 4 sets of speakers 1.)Genelec near field monitors 2.) Yamaha NS-10's 3.)TOC Far field monitors with a sub 4.) Auratone 4" crappy monitors. Most of the time I spent mixing was on the Genelecs and then checking bass response on the TOC's. I found my mixes sounded great on the Genelecs, but when transferred to the real world it sounded aweful. Using the NS-10's my mixes transferred more accurately to the real world, but the NS-10's sounded harsh and it became hard to mix after extended periods of time due to ear fatique. The solution was to use a combination of all the monitors, and sometimes in addition to that I would even burn a CD and have a small boom box to very it sounded good there and I would also run out to my car and listen to it there because, I was very familiar with that system

That should be the key point, you need to listen to whatever monitor you're using by playing a lot of professionally mixed CDs and make mental notes of how those mixes translate onto your monitors and then try to duplicate that sound.

Anothe thing I did when I taught classes in that studio, I would teach the theory of a standing wave. Then we would go into the control room and play a 50Hz sinewave through the TOC's and then walk around the room, where students would then be able to experience and actual standing wave and be able to hear null and voids, due to the standing wave that was present. For mixing purposes, it came to the point where we actually taped an "X" on the carpeting where we decided this was the best point for monitoring our bass frequencies for the most accurate results.

The summary of my long winded post is this. If you're going to get a single monitoring system first off I would recommend Monitoring system #1, then you need to know the pluses and minuses of that system and how to overcome it.

1.) If you setup monitor system#1 and don't add a sub-woofer, then you should look into purchasing a software Spectral Analyzer, so that you can visually see your bass response and how it compares to other mixes, to ensure you're in the correct ballpark.

2.) If you setup monitor system#1 with a seperate subwoofer, then you need to make sure the room is accustically treated, which means someone will need to come in with a microphone with again a spectral analyzer and then treat the room with accoustical material and bass traps to reduce standing waves and other phase cancellation problems from occuring.

Basically an expensive monitor is only as good as the room it's placed in and how familiar you are with that monitor when listening to other professionlly mixed material in that environment.

Red
rs170a wrote on 3/17/2005, 11:53 AM
BillyBoy, I'm one of the "professionals" you seem to like to slam so much. I've been doing this for over 30 years and would no sooner go out on a shoot or do any editing without having good (properly calibrated) reference monitors, both audio & video. With all the various systems that the end user might be using, I want some kind of guarantee so that I can say "the problem is with your equipment". The only way to do that is with some form of reference equipment. Professionals in all walks of life have tools that they rely on every day because they know that they help them do the job right the first time.

Case in point: I'm just wrapping up a shoot that I know I won't have to any colour correction on because I had my field monitor with me that I refer to constantly to check shot composition, lighting, etc.
Was the gear hardware/big box store stuff? No way. I use industry standard lights and mics for the simple reason that it has to work reliably, day in and day out. The cheap stuff simply doesn't last which is why, in the long run, professional gear, IMO, is worth every penny.

BTW, your restaurant owner comparison is only a valid example if you're talking about someone who buys all the toys just to have them. In all my years, I've only met a few of these kinds of people. They find out rather quickly that having all the tools doesn't mean that your final work will be a masterpiece. You still need the necessary skills to get the job done.

I'm reminded of a photography book I saw a number of years ago. The images were shot with a department store Polaroid. So what, you say? The difference was that the cameras were put in the hands of professionals who studied every shot before it was taken to get maximum value from it. Needless to say, the images were stunning!!

Bottom line is that I do care "how my work looks on my customer's equipment". The only way I can guarantee that it will look & sound good is to start with the right gear.

Mike
Rednroll wrote on 3/17/2005, 11:57 AM
"would no sooner go out on a shoot or do any editing without having good (properly calibrated) reference monitors, both audio & video."

Your monitors are no longer calibrated just for the same reasons I mentioned above because your environment just changed and those monitors interact with the evironment that they're in.
MH_Stevens wrote on 3/17/2005, 12:00 PM
Billy Boy: if you DON'T have good near-field speakers you will not even hear what you have! You will edit and mix like a deaf mute, you will be up the Kyber without the proverbial paddle.Like auditing the restraunt without a ticking pen.You can test on your "real world" later to see if it translates.

Rednroll wrote on 3/17/2005, 12:07 PM
"if you DON'T have good near-field speakers you will not even hear what you have"

Yes this is true in some aspects, thus why it's better to get a pair of good near field speakers to reduce this occurance. You can mix just as well with a cheap set of speakers, but you need to know the limitations of that equipment and become familiar with how those speakers sound when playing other material. That's the key, good monitors or bad monitors, in both cases you need to become familiar with them. This is why engineers will bring their own monitors to another studio if they are mixing, because they're "Familiar" with their sound, but this does not elliminate the interaction they have in that different room. You're reducing one variable, but you have no control over the other variable. So before you begin mixing a good engineer will usually set his speakers up and take some time to play some CDs that he's familiar with and get a good idea of how his monitors are interacting with that new environment that he is unfamiliar then just walking in the door and start mixing.

For sh*ts and giggles one time I actually turned my monitors off and mastered an entire song just by visually using my Spectral Analyzer. When I was done, the song sounded pretty damn good, where I only had to do a few minor tweaks. So there again, I was able to overcome the limitations of my NO MONITOR setup.
BillyBoy wrote on 3/17/2005, 12:13 PM
"BTW, your restaurant owner comparison is only a valid example if you're talking about someone who buys all the toys just to have them."

Bingo! Scroll up some and see who I suspect does that. The growing din in this forum doesn't come from me, rather the same couple that constantly try to impress us with what "toys" they have. This forum isn't suppose to be about indivduals or who has what, or who does what, or who's done what. Its suppose to be how to get the most out of Vegas. When a thread gets into "boasting mode" I reserve my right to express my offense by it. Note I didn't mention what equipment to use or not use, and I didn't mention any person. Not surprising to me, is who saw in themselves what I said I saw in that restuarant owner, if not, then why were they bothered by what I said?
Spot|DSE wrote on 3/17/2005, 12:17 PM
In relationship to video monitors (which is what rs170 is referring to), video monitors are virtually always calibrated in the field. It's one of the first things that a pro, or at the least someone who knows what he/she's doing, will undertake on any shoot. No different than taking a sound system into a new club and either using an RTA or familiar program material and EQing it to the room. However, video producers don't take their speakers from place to place, and *usually* shows are posted in the same room their mixed/monitored in, so it's a fixed installation. Therefore, once the room is tuned, or at the least has it's weaknesses exposed, it's usually a done deal for the most part.
I'd have to disagree that one could mix reasonably well on cheap speakers (cheap to me means plastic or low grade particle board speaks for under 100.00) and be faithful to what you are really outputting. If you KNEW that all the front end was good, and that your audio was pristinely recorded, then *maybe* I'd somewhat trust a cheapo speaker, but only maybe. If it was the same room as recorded in, no way would I trust it, because every reference is made on the cheap speaker, so you'll never hear what might really be there.
rs170a wrote on 3/17/2005, 12:25 PM
Rednroll said Your monitors are no longer calibrated ....

Brian, I said "...go out on a shoot or do any editing...".
When I 'm on a shoot, I use a pair of Shure E2 inner ear monitors. I realize that they're not as good as a pair of studio monitors but they come pretty close. Also, I'm listening more for noise problems than anything else. I use a Tram lav so I know the voice will sound good (I'm doing sit-down interviews, in case it matters).
My video monitor is the first thing that gets plugged in on location to allow for warm-up time. Once it's warmed up, I calibrate it to colour bars coming off the camera so that I know it's as accurate as what's in the edit suite.

Mike
Spot|DSE wrote on 3/17/2005, 12:28 PM
Mike, on your Shures, do you have the custom molds, or the factory silicon? I've got the Etymotics, and really love them, but their ear mold cost is nearly double that of Shure....so I'm considering getting a pair of Shures instead.
Spot|DSE wrote on 3/17/2005, 12:31 PM
JBL even makes a small suitcase just for this. I'd likely not buy one, but they were giving them away while they lasted at NCSA, so a friend picked a couple up and sent me one. Very nice, and they carry my little Genelec 1029's just perfectly. There's a lot of "cool" factor when you get on a plane tugging a suitcase that says "JBL" in big orange letters. :-)
rs170a wrote on 3/17/2005, 12:51 PM
Scroll up some and see who I suspect does that (buys all the toys).

What I saw was a whole lot of people who mentioned specific pieces of equiment that they own and their reasons for liking them.
Have you ever seen the inside of a well-equipped grip truck? More lights, stands and other assorted gear than you can imagine. Why do they need all that stuff you say? I could've really used one on my shoot this week. I've got some lighting gear but, as any shooter will tell you, you never have enough. I'd like at least 6 more lights, stands, flags, gels, etc. YMMV.

Mike
rs170a wrote on 3/17/2005, 12:58 PM
Just the factory moulds Douglas. They came with 3 sizes and I ended up using the smallest ones. My co-worker (musician and studio owner) recommended them and I've been very happy with them. They were only $100 Canadian :-)

Mike
BillyBoy wrote on 3/17/2005, 12:58 PM
Nobody is talking about "Walmart" speakers. I was seeing more gilding of the lily posts by the same two that love to refer to themselves as "professionals" and no surprise their constantly losing their temper again anytime somebody expresses a view different then their's.

Skipping "professional" audio systems and opening it up to a broader retail range so more can follow along, when I was putting together my home theater I looked at speakers in a wide range of prices. I could easily afford a pair of Definitive Technology BP 7002's for my right and left speakers, "only" $1,100 each. I could have picked similar or even higher end speakers. But you know what, I settled on a pair of Sony SS-MF750H instead and grabbed a companion center speaker and didn't spend half as much as just one BP 7002 would have cost. I just didn't blindly decide. I first did research on the web, everybody raved about the Sony speakers, many saying they were close in quality to far more expensive makes, then I when to a large Fry's and in one of those 'sound rooms' I listened. Difference? Hardly any. Oh sure maybe the more expensive speakers were a bid crisper on the high notes, maybe the bass was a tad richer. Worth the price difference? No f..... way.

I could mention what speakers I use with my editing PC, but I won't because no matter what I said, again the same little gang would find fault. Which brings us to why I commented in this thread. Too many times I see the same two hinting they're more professional than the next guy because they use X or Y and you don't. That's so bush league and so obviously self-serving I shouldn't have to mention it. I post here to help people. Some people post here to impress others and promote themselves. That's not what this forum is suppose to be about. Duh!
rs170a wrote on 3/17/2005, 1:05 PM
BillyBoy, there's a world of difference between any home system and what you'll find in a recording studio or video post house. I'm the first to admit that my home stereo system as well as my computer monitors (both CRT & speakers) leave a lot to be desired. The difference is that I'm not relying on them to make quality decisions that someone else is paying for.

Since you seem to respect him, I'd really like Rednroll to comment on the suitability of any of the speakers you mentioned for use in a recording studio environment.

Mike
Rednroll wrote on 3/17/2005, 1:18 PM
"I'd have to disagree that one could mix reasonably well on cheap speakers"

Well, in your disagreement you're actually agreeing and making my point. Ideally a good set of studio quality monitors is the best choice. This I explained and the reason is that you're reducing the variables that can influence obtaining a bad mix as I outlined above. My main point was that even the best set of monitors costing you $30K a pair can give you a bad mix if the other variables are not recognized. This does not mean someone using a pair of home non studio monitors can not obtain a reasonably good mix, if they are familiar with the sound that those speakers produce. The key is "familiarity". I have a hard time walking into a "pro" studio where they're using a pair of monitors that I'm unfamiliar with and how the room sounds. Thus I can say the same thing that you can't reasonably get a good mix even on a top dollar pair of Genelecs if you're not familiar with their sound. As I pointed out, my mixes using a pair of Genelecs costing $3.5k where actually worse than using the NS-10's and the Auratones. Once I became more familiar with the Genelecs, my mix quality drastically increased. I did a lot of mastering work, and people would bring me in their final mixes for mastering. I had a client using a PC and a pair of cheap speakers that he took from his broken down Sears stereo system because it's all he could afford at that time. He must have known those speakers pretty well, because his mixes sounded better than some of the stuff I was receiving from other "professional" studios using top of the line monitors. So yes it is possible, you're just putting yourself at a disadvantage, you just need to be able to overcome those disadvantages.
Rednroll wrote on 3/17/2005, 1:25 PM
You know Mike I agree with you on the most part. If someone is paying for studio time, then the key is I want to make them feel comfortable with the equipment I'm using, but it's not there because I want them to walk in and say, "oh my mixes are going to be good, because he uses studio monitor blah, blah, blah that costs $5000." They come in and return, because they're familiar with the quality of the work, not because of the monitors I use. I can say the same thing for my DAW. I was recently told that Vegas is not a DAW, by Sony, it's an NLE with DAW like features." Well, I still use Vegas, because that's what I feel comfortable with and gives me the best results. If I was to follow your reasoning then I would have to move to Protools because everyone's been telling me to get professional results I must use Protools.
rs170a wrote on 3/17/2005, 1:54 PM
Brian, my apologies if I misled anyone. My rationale has always been to use the tools for the job, whatever they may be, as long as they're the right tools. By that, I don't mean that everyone has to have the latest and greatest of everythinig at their disposal. For example, I'd love to be shooting with Digital BetaCam but the reality (and budget considerations) of my workplace are such that I shoot using a JVC DV-550 and edit on either Vegas or dpsVelocity, depending on project needs.
The two post houses in town use a combination of Avid & FCP . Does that mean I have to? No. I use what I'm comfortable with and will get the job done with the least amount of problems.
When I tell people that I edit on Vegas, the usual response is "Vegas? Never heard of it." Like you said though, all that matters is the quality of the work and I take a lot of pride in mine. How I got it done doesn't make any difference to the client, only that it meets their needs.

Mike
BillyBoy wrote on 3/17/2005, 3:00 PM
I always get amused by what others try to say I've said.

I in no way mentioned WHICH speakers I used for listening to my audio tracks when editing, exactly for the reasonrs rs170a70a now imples oh you can't compare a home stereo system to a recording studio. I DIDN'T.

I mentioned my home theater speakers in the context of why I bought them. FOR MY HOME THEATER and simply illustrated the point that price alone does not automatically imply quality or superior results.

Which is really the central issue that bugs me... namely the endless drum beat by a couple implying I use X which costs more, so by inference, I do better work than the next guy or I'm more professional than you are. That's almost as silly as someone saying oh, I drive a BMW, so I'm a better driver because you're only driving a Chevy.

Quality of work of course to some degree is influenced by one's choice of tools. However NOTHING trumps experience and talent. I'll take a carpenter with a carefully selected selection of well broken in hand tools over some guy pulling up in a fancy new truck filled with fancy new tools with the words "professional carpentner" painted on the side in some vain attempt to impress the gullible.
wakiyan wrote on 3/17/2005, 3:36 PM
Gonzoman hope you received helpfull information I know I certainly did . A heated debate with various veiws is a good thing . A good spectrum of information is in this thread , but we still don't know what parameters Gonzoman is dealing with.
BB glad those sony's work out for you they sound like a great set for the price. I purchased some Def Tec's awhile back and I'm please with them . I didn't go for the towers with the active sub . I instead decided to get a Def Tec sub I could place were I wanted it .

Jon
Rednroll wrote on 3/17/2005, 3:42 PM
"As usual this is getting boring and unrelated."

That's funny, that sure wasn't my viewpoint. It's a topic that has stayed on topic. It started with a question about speakers and maintained that way throughout. So in your opinion, we shouldn't have any disagreements in a discussion? Now how constructive is that? So if person A, says this is the WAY to do it and it has to be that way, because I said so, we shouldn't enter into any debate over their advice if we don't agree with it? I'm sorry I offered any information that might have benefitted you in this discussion NAT. You obviously, haven't contributed ANY information one way or the other. I'm offended by your rude behavior, saying this thread is "boring and unrelated". I took the time to explain my viewpoint with backing information supporting it and you have the audacity to say this is "boring". Screw you, ya putz. You have a choice, don't read it if it bothers you and bores you. Oh I forgot we should only talk about things that interest YOU. Ok, let's talk about nested time lines again and again, since that seems to be the only advice you have to offer. At least have some common courtesy and offer some of YOUR advice, rather than coming in and criticizing everyone elses "boring and unrelated" information. BB, has his viewpoint, DSE has his, Mike has his, MH stevens has his, and JC has his. I welcome ALL the viewpoints even if I don't fully agree with them, but if I don't agree with them I'll tell you WHY and give a common courtesy of supporting it with facts that I consider to be true. It seems like you have a problem with BB's viewpoint. The thing is he backs his viewpoint with information and analogies. What is wrong with that? The only thing I find wrong in this thread is with someone that comes in and offers NONE of their viewpoint or any additional knowledge to the subject and then criticizes the discussion because it doesn't suit their taste. I believe there's a term for that and it's called "troll".

P.S. You see the type of behavior you've encouraged SonyChaboud with locking out a thread. Now we got children coming in and yelling "Dad!!!!, this thread is getting boring and unrelated, put a lock on it again." Nice, great feature you added to the forums, it seems to have worked in a positive manor....NOT!!!