Why the car?

[cardell]

Looks like I'd better give it a go!

I'd be interested in hearing your opinion on that software.

Stuart

[mojobone]

Well, you needn't; there's a huge long thread on the VI Control forum.


http://vi-control.net/community/threads ... wow.58189/

[fuzzbox]

Hi Graham,
I have used Reference 3 headphone calibration for over a year now and it's excellent. The headphone calibration uses the same algorithm as the monitor system as I understand. My room is not ideal and though I have acoustic treatment using the Reference 3 plugin in addition gives you that one more piece of the puzzle. Used in conjunction with your reference tracks then you should be able to hear what you're missing or what you're over doing. You get that flat response!

If you know your car speakers and what your favourite songs sound like in the car and your mix sounds reasonable against it then you moving in the right direction. I used to take most of my mixes to the car but less so with the Reference 3 plugin.

If your room is not ideal, this plugin is worth a look. Sonarworks will even calibrate your headphones if they're not on the list.

Cheers Graham

[mojobone]

The car is where the most people listen to the most music. It's also a pretty bad listening environment. A tip? Don't listen in your driveway, listen at 65MPH to make sure your peaks are punching through the road/wind noise.

[Telefunkin]

I gave the Sonarworks software a go. It provides an adjustment to make your headphone frequency response flat (or a custom response if you prefer). The company also offer to measure your actual headphone response to provide a more correct adjustment for that pair, but I think the generic curve for my headphones (Beyer DT880 pro) is close enough for me. They are shown as missing some bass end and high mids but having some extra high frequencies, and sure enough when applying the correction I can hear more bass and more upper highs (although I can't hear any change in high frequencies because of my age and playing in bands for far too many years, plus the resulting tinitus).
OK, I guess that's a good result.

Having applied the 'correction', its then possible to simulate other listening environments, and NS10s are on that list, i.e. you can make your headphones sound like you're listening through NS10 speakers.

There's also another more expensive version of this Sonarworks software to correct for your monitor speakers and rooms. It generates test tones while you measure the sound in your room with a calibrated mic (or your own mic if you have a calbration curve for it). That process generates the correction curve that you can then apply when listening through your monitors. That all sounds like a good thing to do as well, although I've not tried it.

However, I can't help thinking this is a crazy world, for a few reasons:-
- If its so easy to apply an electronic correction for headphones, why don't headphone manufacturers provide one, or even build it into the headphones?
- If you then have a flat (or near) headphone response, why would you need or want them to sound like NS10s?
- If you can apply a generic correction to headphones, why not apply a generic one to speakers? OK, I know that omits room coloration, but at least if you have a flat speaker response you ought to be better off than having a coloured response which is also coloured by the room.
- If you can do what I just said, then why is anyone selling any pro studio gear that doesn't have a flat response correction? Note that I'm talking about gear for studio use rather than domestic use.
- If you can do what I just said, then from a flat starting point it should also be possible to simulate ANY listening environment, e.g. car, ear buds, TV, radio, cinema, elevator, noisy neighbour, Sun Studio. Abbey Road, etc....

Will I buy this software? Well, for $99 and also 10% discount, I guess the headphone version is worth having. I'd be happy to try the speaker version, but it is quite a lot more expensive. Of course the most expensive purchase is the headphone, speaker and mic combo, and quite honestly, I think I'd rather put that cash into some better monitors. They might not be perfect, but I'd feel like I'd invested in something physical, nice to look at, and that I could re-sell if I wanted. After all, none of this will make me a better mixer, its just a 'leg-up' to getting there.

OK, now I've lit the blue touchpaper. Will there be fireworks?

[mojobone]

Why don't we make all the speakers/headphones have a flat response? There are two correct answers to that question. First, as compared to the speakers and headphones we made forty-fifty years ago, we kinda already do, and second, it's kinda hard to sell neutral-sounding transducers to people who prefer a smiley curve that makes music sound better than it really is. A third good answer is that no two people can agree on what flat sounds like, even after they've measured; everybody's got different ears and a different room. Given that it doesn't cost any more to make good monitors or headphones than bad, you'd maybe think they'd all be pretty good by now, and they are, but consumer stuff and the pro versions have completely different applications. What it boils down to is that accuracy just doesn't sound very good.

[Telefunkin]

Well, if we can't agree on what 'flat' is then how will we ever agree on what's a good monitoring system and what's a good mix?

Also, I get that the laws of physics make is just about impossible for small speakers to reproduce evenly down to 20hz or so, and maybe some people don't even want that, but it would be great if studio monitors were that good (flat), whilst domestic (coloured) speakers could be kept for listening pleasure. I thought the point was that if you can make a track sound good on flat=boring monitors it will probably sound more enjoyable on the 'smiley-faced' domestic speakers, and hopefully elsewhere too.

Of course, the compensation curves offered by such as Sonarworks are only capable of compensation in the frequency domain, and can do little to correct for time-domain issues. I don't think they mention that in their sales blurb. I didn't notice it in the linked forum discussion either (but might have missed it).

You're right though Mojo. Many of today's monitors are far better than they used to be, particularly at the low end of the market (i.e. my price bracket). Are today's mixes better than they used to be as a result? Will anyone's mixes be better if they have flat response speakers, or if they apply a compensation curve? Will it turn [R]s into [F]s ? In theory, perfect monitoring (whatever that is) ought to help us make music that translates better to all listening environments, but I believe it will always be more important to have good hearing, skill, taste and artistic ability. Blessed with only a light dusting of the last three (and not so much left of the first), I suppose I should stop worrying and put up with whatever kit I've got...........or dash out to the car again.

[Casey H]

Just to add. Many of the people we pitch our music listen in the car. They are busy folks so car time is perfect for evaluating music sent to them. So, it's a good idea to have your mix sound good on a car system.

Casey

[guscave]

I use to take my mixes to either in my wife’s car or in my truck. Both are horrible for determining the quality of a mix. One sounds too bassy, while the other barely has any mids. I figured that about the only thing I could really reference in the car was level balance between instruments, and that’s something I can do with my iPad speakers, earbuds, and my UE boom box.

I bought the Sonarworks headphone calibration software and it’s a nice addition to help me get a better mix, but IMO nothing beats a really good reference track. If your mix is up to par with your reference track, then all should be good.

[Len911]

Well, if we can't agree on what 'flat' is then how will we ever agree on what's a good monitoring system and what's a good mix?

Ears can fatigue, ears can deceive,lol, but there's also the visual analyzers. Maybe they're only a fairly recent addition to the mixing toolset is why they aren't as much of the conversation??
https://www.meldaproduction.com/MMultiAnalyzer

They aren't a substitute for hearing, it's more like how lyrics are a lot more understandable with a lyric sheet.

Mixing is mostly about volume and frequency blending and comparison, and visual analyzers can help out a lot.