Accurate speakers for mastering - A good or bad thing ?

[dangercityskyline]

wow, that's a pretty insane room, which means he's probably insanely expensive.
haha.

plus that client list would be hard to beat.

what are the monitors he's using?

[Rakie]

Originally Posted by dangercityskyline

wow, that's a pretty insane room, which means he's probably insanely expensive.
haha.

plus that client list would be hard to beat.

what are the monitors he's using?

I have no idea, but they're massive.

Yeah Doug is kinda expensive but he's great, or he wouldn't have that client list, and thats just a glimpse of what he's done.

Basically just adding additional info to the several set of speakers theory. Thats dependent on the individual.

[vortico]

Originally Posted by dangercityskyline

finally, you'd want a not-so-hot pair of what probably amount to nothing more than average computer speakers. at this point you probably think i'm crazy, but hear me out: the purpose of having these last two pairs of speakers is to hear what your mastered mix will sound like on a diverse set of speakers, to simulate what most people will probably listen to it on.

I wouldn't go there. On paper it might be a good idea, but in reality, you're shooting yourself in the foot (or ear) if you do that.

[dangercityskyline]

I wouldn't go there. On paper it might be a good idea, but in reality, you're shooting yourself in the foot (or ear) if you do that.

how so? i'm pretty sure it can't hurt to check your mix on as many speakers as possible.

[garageband]

I wouldn't go there.

I would totally use that guy. Besides, who gives a s--t what your music sounds like on s--t speakers? All music sounds like s--t on s--t speakers. If you have proper monitoring it's a complete waste of time to play it here there and everywhere. That crap is for people willing to put up with inadequate monitors. Who has that kind of time? Make an EQ/balance change and burn another copy? Sad. The wages of parsimony are an impoverished result.

All I care about is he has good monitors, good hardware (you can't master a recording properly with plug-ins), some ability and experience and gives a crap about making my music sound good. A dude who has created a space like that clearly cares about what he's doing.

[dangercityskyline]

I wouldn't go there.

Um, I think he was talking about not using multiple sets of monitors, not about not going to the guy you mentioned. anybody in their right mind would use that guy.

Besides, who gives a s--t what your music sounds like on s--t speakers?

I sure do. Don't you think most bands or artists would care about how their music will sound on what most of the population listens to them on, ipod earbuds or standard computer speakers?

All music sounds like s--t on s--t speakers.

i'm not trying to be harsh or a jerk but this is more or less completely wrong. plenty of people that listen to their music on their phones or on ipod headphones (what you would consider "s--t speakers") think their music sounds pretty damn good, me included.

you don't have to own a pair of studio monitors for your music to sound "good".

[garageband]

We all own and listen to low quality speakers. That's not my point entirely. My point is that you get it right on high end speakers and it'll translate well on every other thing. Being concerned about this or that lo-fi playback device seems wrong-headed. I can't imagine a mastering facility making EQ or other processing decisions based on how it may sound on an ipod. I could be wrong. Think how much recorded material has been made totally ignorant how it would sound on a lo-fi playback system. Run through a half dozen genres in you head. Classical? Jazz? AOR? Pete Fountain? Were engineers of the '70s duping 8 tracks of their mixes and trying them in Cordobas? Maybe.
A more sound approach, to my mind, is to make it as good as possible let the ipods take care of themselves

[dangercityskyline]

We all own and listen to low quality speakers. That's not my point entirely.

ok. I accept that. that's how it came out though.

But here's the thing, at least how I see it. When you get to the level of having the perfect high-end $5k studio monitors and the epic mastering room, at that point, instead of you having to compensate for your own weaknesses (in gear and rooms and such), you have to start compensating for the weaknesses of everyone else's. That is, what sounds terrific on your super-accurate mega dollar monitors may sound different on somebody's super bass-pumped stero system at home, or someone's POS computer speakers.

of course this is all my take on it, and i could be wrong.
My personal opinion, and this is just what I personally believe, is that it can't hurt to check your mixes on as many sets of speakers as reasonably possible.

A more sound approach, to my mind, is to make it as good as possible let the ipods take care of themselves

Of course you would want the mix as good as possible, but keep in mind that the music is being sold to the masses, not to the mastering engineer.

[TonyB]

I believe while you don't intentionally or go out of your way to "mix into mp3 players or cheap home stereos," I do know that you have to check to ensure the songs have translated to those media.

The big who-hahs have admitted to listening to their mixes in their vehicles on the way home as well as having an iPod on their mixing desk to make periodic checks on translation (i.e., Paul Worley, Chuck Anley, Clarke Schleicher, etc all do it).

I don't recall who said it but at a seminar in Nashville one of the engineers regularly uses his vehicle's car stereo to give him his usual "what was I thinking" when I did this mix moment.

[garageband]

Fair enough. I'll be more open to including that in the process.