iPod Earbuds (Awesome)

[Audio~Geek]

I don't hear a whole lot of difference.

The vocal is not clear in either example and I'm struggling to figure out the lyrics and if they are in english or not.

[paul999]

Originally Posted by Audio~Geek

I don't hear a whole lot of difference.

The vocal is not clear in either example and I'm struggling to figure out the lyrics and if they are in english or not.

Oh I was sure they weren't in english and that they were meant to be mumbled as an effect. I hadn't considered the alternative. Hmmmm

[frshtrx]

trying to be constructive to all above:
1- lyrics (in English) loosely translated for my fellow geritol gents ; )
something about ...
a girl in a club named <?> Shirley, and she's gonna come home with me... or maybe she is "surely" going to go home... either way...sounds like 'it's on like donkey kong'. excellent!

bass and ibuds:
although I think mix 1 is the better of the two.....I think adding the bass to the vocals (and rest of the mix) clouded the tracks...where as the bass line response in the second...maybe with the original vocal Eq, would have helped best define the elements in the song and also given it the maximum dance-ability impact. More like Usher.
Yes, I said "dance-ability impact", which should coincide nicely with DJ2Aron's tagline, "music should be felt, not heard." No one else can use that term unless they send me a quarter. Called it!
My mix check system is a ford ranger. I bought it used for about $6k. Although when I bought it I wasn't thinking of it as studio equipment...maybe now I can write it off?

[bitflipper]

Sorry, but I think the "before" file has the better EQ.

The "after" version illustrates exactly what I'd expect from using iPod earbuds as a reference: boosts in those frequencies that the earbuds do not reproduce well.

I am not saying "don't use the earbuds". As awful as they are, they are still a valid reference, especially given their ubiquity. Just don't treat them as the ultimate arbiter of quality.

[scubaninja]

I haven't listened to the clips (it's just one specific example to go with a more general discussion), but I think given the popularity of iPods and the number of people listening to music on iPod earbuds, it can't hurt to at least listen to your music in this way.

Generally speaking, when I cross check mixes on other playback systems, I'm generally at the point where I'm listening to make sure I can hear all the specific mix elements reasonably well, and to make sure that nothing is exceedingly harsh. Perhaps this is a function of my live sound background, where "search and destroy the noise and awful harsh frequencies" was the M.O. for each channel.

What I definitely would not do is drastically alter the final mix for the iPod earbuds at the expense of the original monitoring setup. However, I don't think anyone is advocating that here.

In my opinion, if you're on a budget, getting some really good headphones is by far your best bang for the buck to get top sound quality. A $100 pair of Sony MDR-7506 headphones sound as good as a $1000 pair of studio monitors.

You don't want to only mix on headphones, but they are GREAT to use as a microscope to check for things you might have otherwise missed. They will also sound much better than even a pair of $500 speakers for sheer sound quality and accuracy. If you're on a shoestring budget, first rate headphones can be your best friend.

These days, I use my Sony MDR-7506 headphones to cross check mixes, to put specific sounds under a microscope, and for monitoring while recording. I have a pair of Mackie HR824's, so I do most of my general listening and mixing on those now. However, when I had KRK RP-5's and before, the Sony headphones were far and away better than anything else I could get my hands on, and I got so I could mix pretty well on the headphones, cross checking on speakers to make sure things held up.

I'm sure there will be differing opinions here, but that's my $0.02.

[mindundermatter]

A $100 pair of Sony MDR-7506 headphones sound as good as a $1000 pair of studio monitors.

I hope you're joking. Those headphones are notoriously crappy. Also, headphones and monitors should never be compared to each other for a number of reasons I won't even get into on this discussion.

They will also sound much better than even a pair of $500 speakers for sheer sound quality and accuracy.

Again, don't compare monitors to headphones.

I have a pair of Mackie HR824's, so I do most of my general listening and mixing on those now.

I'm sorry.

[scubaninja]

If you take pity on me (really?) for using Sony MDR-7506 headphones and Mackie HR824's, I'm not sure there's much common ground here.

These products stand up well enough, and have been used in enough professional environments around the world that they can defend themselves without me getting into a flame war on their behalf.

Congratulations sir, you win this thread!

[mindundermatter]

They do stand up well enough. I've used both on a number of occasions. In fact, the Mackies were almost the "new NS10s". I've done lots of mixing on them and I hated them. The Sonys have gotten lots of use because they are relatively inexpensive and sound decent. No one wants to buy 3 pairs of $500 'wow, this sounds amazing' headphones for tracking, which is why they are so popular.

I have no intention of arguing about which brand is better. However, I do have a problem with you telling people that cheap headphones are 'as good as' expensive monitors.

[bitflipper]

It always amazes me how easily disagreements can arise in any discussion involving audio quality.

A $100 pair of Sony MDR-7506 headphones sound as good as a $1000 pair of studio monitors.

I do have a problem with you telling people that cheap headphones are 'as good as' expensive monitors.

Although perhaps deliberately inflammatory, scubaninja's statement might also very well be true. The operative phrase is "sound as good as", which is a subjective qualifier. Had he said "as accurate as" or even "as useful as", I would have taken issue with it, too. But as to whether headphones can be as pleasant to listen to as a decent pair of reference monitors, yes they certainly can be. In fact, in a small room with no acoustical treatment, they can sound a LOT better.

...don't compare monitors to headphones.

Good advice, especially within the context of DIY mastering. Headphones are not a suitable substitute for quality speakers. A mix that sounds great on speakers will usually sound great on headphones, too, but the converse is not necessarily true.

HR824s are somewhat divisive. Some hate them. I am not a big fan of them myself, but they're not awful. In fact, the most commonly-heard criticism is that they sound good. It's a true statement. I met a couple who use a pair on their TV set (they were Mackie employees and got the HR824s in a raffle at the company Christmas party), an application that most nearfields would definitely NOT be suitable for. Mine (ADAM P11) certainly wouldn't.

OTOH, the HR824 is indeed almost as ubiquitous as the NS-10, at least in small, semi-professional and project studios. How awful could they be? They are not awful at all. They are more accurate than ANY headphones, to be sure.

Those headphones are notoriously crappy.

As for the Sony 7506, it would be a stretch to call them "crappy". There are probably better choices for the studio (e.g. Sennheiser 280Pro for tracking for their superior isolation, Audio-Technica ATH-M50 for their flatness), as the Sonys are really meant for pleasure listening, not critical listening. But "crappy"? Nah. I like the sound of them.

[TonyB]

Originally Posted by bitflipper

It always amazes me how easily disagreements can arise in any discussion involving audio quality.

In fact, in a small room with no acoustical treatment, they can sound a LOT better.

Headphones are not a suitable substitute for quality speakers. A mix that sounds great on speakers will usually sound great on headphones, too, but the converse is not necessarily true.

I'd say it's hard to argue with this. I always check my mixes on headphones. I don't mix with headphones for some of the reasons suggested above.

Because the left and right channels are isolated from each other in headphones, you're not going to hear any potential phase problems. Because the "left channel is only in the left ear" and the "right channel is only in the right ear" you're not going to get the overall affect what's going on with the overall audio sprectrum of the song. Since the sound (transducers of the headphone) is so close to your ears you're going to get a different perspective than listening to monitors about 3 feet away from your ears (i.e., certain frequencies attenuate more than others through open air). [Not taking room acoustics into consideration here at bitflipper mentioned]. Because of this, headphones can over accentuate the high frequencies. In my situation if I monitor on headphones too long, ear fatigue is not long thereafter.

Someone could've articulated that better than I did.

Anway, I think it's good practice to mix on monitors designed to do the job and check your mixes in headphones. I find that I can hear those nasty little low frequency noises (i.e., air conditioner, burps, farts, etc) as well as pops, clicks, etc through headphones.