Why the car?

[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.

[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.

[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.

[fuzzbox]

But at the end of the day... doesn't come down to comparison of your reference track(s) and your mix?
Doesn't that negate most (if not all) of the room correction software/hardware, expensive monitors, manufacturers blurb, flat response, subs, etc, etc?

If your get your mix to sound the same as (or as close to) your reference track on that speaker, in that room, at that distance, with or without acoustic treatment... surely it should translate to another system... the car? It would probably need a tweak I'm sure...

Not sure about audio and visuals.. I was taught that the McGurk effect can fool even the best of us.

[fuzzbox]

Hey Telefunkin!,
yeah it is astonishing!

Watch this it's incredible! Even when you know what your hear your eyes take over!: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G-lN8vWm3m0

it's fascinating really or... you could say... seeing is believing lol

That is why I was taught to use your ear not the gear... Well... I'm still working on that! ♫♪♫

No matter how many times you watch it, your eyes win every time!!!!

[fuzzbox]

Reference 3 is good value for the money. I have Sennheiser HD headphones and they're on the list of already calibrated responses. If your cans are not on the list, you can get them calibrated specifically. But I think you already mentioned that.
Use it with your reference tracks and you're in the right ball park.

Note
Try to remember to disable the plugin from your chain BEFORE playing on your monitors AND BEFORE exporting for mastering.

I have been caught out with this a number of times (and still do ).

Every time you mix, you're adding a tiny amount of incremental improvement... it is small to detect in isolation but looking back over a period of time, you should be able hear your improvement. It's like learning an instrument. The more you practice the better you get.
The key though... is practice with intent (You're a guitar player, so you know how to work on it ) Yes it's tough AND can be subjective. If it was easy... everyone would be doing it!

[Len911]

The McGurk affect fools?? You could also call it the "lyric affect", where people often mis-hear lyrics if they don't have a lyric sheet.

The visual analysis tools don't really have optical illusions, as long as you know how to interpret the data correctly and are aware of their shortcomings. Use both in conjunction with one another.

Monitoring is over-hyped and over-rated, unless you are using extreme eq, and why would you if you are using in-tune instruments, a decent room, good mic and preamp, good in the box instruments. I've never been able to get a better sound using eq. Pros and cons of different types of eq:
https://www.meldaproduction.com/text-tu ... equalizers

"It's the ear, not the gear", total bs imho! That's the mistaken supposition that you can eq anything to sound better.

The best thing that can be said about monitoring is that it allows you to hear what's going on, and that with an expensive system you should have more resolution. Logically maybe it makes sense to have a more expensive monitoring system if you need to do a lot of processing because you used substandard equipment in the first place.

Mixing starts with the musical arrangement. The Melda Analyzer can show you collisions and volumes, etc. which could aid in seeing what sounds are being masked, etc. Hearing is the final determinant.

Ultimately though, if you mix on your near field monitors, and everything is good, and sounds like it's on the same playlist as your reference commercial recordings, if it sounds terrible on someone's car stereo, they will either not know the difference, or they will know that they should maybe upgrade their car stereo.

[mojobone]

I reckon I coulda just said, "hearing is subjective." and left it at that. Truly, it's more ear than gear, you really can mix on almost anything if you use reference tracks, but it certainly helps if your monitors can reproduce the entire range of frequencies that humans can hear-evenly and at levels appropriate for mixing. Time domain response is just as important as frequency, and there is no apparent limit on what you might have to spend to get all that, depending on your room. I would guess maybe 5% or less of even the most dedicated music lovers will ever hear all that outside of an IMAX theater, but I'm not gonna leave it to chance; some people still go to movies.

Is there anything below 40Hz that we'd want to hear? Maybe if it's a soundtrack for a disaster movie, but essentially, you want to be able to hear that low to make sure there isn't anything down there that's robbing your mix of punch and energy; I'm sure I'm not the only producer who's highpassing the entire mix, to make sure, and it's something I never did 'til I bought some real monitors, and when I did, I was shocked by what a difference it made. Simply put, you can mix on anything, but you probably shouldn't master unless you're confident that you're hearing everything.