HEADPHONES vs MONITORS

[Picking Moose]

Mixing tools: HEADPHONES vs MONITORS

I like to throw a bomb in here... stir stale waters a bit...

It has been said many many times over (in music blogs, forums, chat-boxes, music magazines), that proper mixing cannot and should not be done using headphones.
Useful for checking some details, perhaps, but that's all.

Find me just 1 top Sound Engineer who mix with headphones if you can.
None. Zip. Nada. Zero. And they are the experts!!! They mix day after day, song after song. If studios spend 5 figures $ to get the best sounding monitors there must be a reason, right?

So we all agree.. mixing using cans is BAD, BAD practice and you'll never achieve a good well balanced mix unless you use a decent pair of monitors.

Right? Wrong!

Let me just checour hard-saved 200€ in your pocket you try a few... buy the 1 set that fits your needs... Take it home, plug it in.
Done.

Monitors
What do you need to make those monitors sound as best as possible?
Quite a few things, really.
You need proper shelves to put them on to.
You need proper spacing between them.
You need to “set them up” properly (cabling, toeing in, match output volume with DAW enc)
You need to acoustically treat your room (this is going to hurt a bit).

So.. with your hard-saved 200€ in your pocket (ha ha.. that's all? What do you think that will get you?).. try a few.. buy the 1 set that fits the bill.
Take it home, plug it in. Done.

DONE? I don't think so.

After all the (proper and needed) setting up if you really want to make the most of your monitors, or even if you just want them not to sound like bird's droppings, you MUST treat you room acoustically.
Absorbing panels, bass traps.. thick curtains.. pictures on walls.. rug or carpet on floor.. any or all of these things will help make the monitors as accurate as possible and, in most cases, it will cost you more money.

To properly treat a room “acoustically” for monitoring purposes you must know what to do and how to do it.
I don't. Do you?

One more thing...

Let's say you have gone to all the trouble to get those 200€ monitors sound as good as they can.. you've got a great sounding room, with bass traps, absorbing panels, the lot... but something is still not there. Of course!!!
Those 200€ only allowed you to buy small monitors.. their frequency response doesn't go below 60Hz (if you're lucky).
But hey..
there's a matching sub-woofer for them (I hear you say).
It costs xxx$ but it really makes all the difference.....

There you have it.
The truth no one wanted to say about headphones vs monitors for mixing.

Of course top Producers and Sound Engineers don't mix on headphones. That is true.
But have you seen the studios these people work in? Don't look much like your average “bedroom-turned-studio” do they!

So if you think mixing with monitors is better than mixing with headphones, think again

I have been mixing and mastering my own music using headphones since ever.
When I had my first recording system (Fostex 4tracker) the 30£ I had left to spend on monitors could not buy me even a toy system.. so I got a pair of Sennheiser HD 480 Classic instead.
Then I upgraded to HD-580 Precision and recently acquired a pair of AKG K-701.
I do use monitors too (M-Audio BX-5a) but only to check stereo balance and reverbs, really.

The AKG cost me just below 200€. I cannot think of ANY set of monitors costing the same that would give me the same accuracy when monitoring.

Of course, one must be aware of the limitations and/or deficiencies of the headphones and adjust accordingly but this is true for any monitoring system (of any type, size and shape).

And here are my headphones, of course.
The Sennheiser HD-580 is paired with the Beyerdynamic DT-250, used for tracking.




The AKG K-701

[ukejon]

I agree that headphone can work well. Sure, it would be fun to have a great space with great monitors but that isn't an option. In my room, monitors (Mackie, Yamaha) sound rather muddy, imprecise and dark. I like the immediacy and clarity of the headphones. Is it best practice? Probably not but I'm doing solo fingerstyle so maybe it doesn't matter. In a more complicated mix, maybe the room/monitor approach is essential.

[K-vegas]

If I was recording for profit (other people paying me) I would have a well designed room and a pro set or two of monitors for playback and mixing. Period. Take away the well-designed room and profit-needs and my question is:

Why do so many folks get worked up over what others use for their equipment or the sound properties of their bedroom? It's a hobby for most... wish we could just chillax over the rules(don't ever, can't, should never) that we've adapted for others to follow.

I've put out music (simple 1&1 tracks) that never ran thru my monitors. Other tracks I've played for hours thru my pro jbl monitors. They both paid the same

Make some music. Have some fun. Try to get bit better each time. Encourage others to do same

[KevWind]

In todays world where it is likely that the largest percent of listening is in fact done on ear buds . I dont think the controversy is a pronounced as it was.

That said I would say that real advantage of mixing on monitors is that if done correctly, where it sounds great over a number of different types of speakers , it will in fact also sound great with headphones or ear buds always.
And the truth is the opposite is less likely to be true. Certainly it is possible, but still less likely or automatic and you hit upon the reason. "Balance" .

You sort of dismissed it with "but only to check stereo balance and reverbs," But IMO there is really very little to mixing that is more important than balance (balance in the total sense) . Not only left to right which HPs can make less distinguishable or different , but also in the relationship of individual elements in the mix to each other, volume wise, eq wise, compression wise, and reverb wise... AND these can and often do sound different in speakers than in headphones for a number of acoustical and psychoacoustic reasons. Perhaps not better or worse per se, but definitely different . Also I would guess that it is probably true that single element like a solo acoustic guitar performance may be less problematic to get right in HPs only, I would say that is also true that the more elements you add to mix the more problematic or difficult HP's only become.

I would agree that in terms of only cost, the HP's easily have a 5 to 20 fold advantage over speakers But for me personally it is not a matter of Spk's "Vs" HP's but more a matter of Spk's "+" HP's

So
I do just the opposite of you, I mix with my monitors but always check the mix again on my HP's. Which are Senn HD 600s

[sonicland]

IMHO, the biggest difference by far between monitors and headphones is this:

With monitors, both ears hear the sound coming from both speakers. Our brains use quite a bit of processing power to receive and deal with what each ear gets, and what speaker it gets it from. The space you are in has a lot to do with how our brains make us perceive that sound. Millenia of being hunter/gatherers has given us auditory abilities that most of us probably take for granted.

With headphones, the right ear only gets what is sent to the right side of the mix and the left ear only gets what is sent to the left side. Neither ear is getting any of the same sound the other one is. Because of this, there is a definite lack of spacial information for our brains to interpret and I suspect this is the reason many dislike mixing with headphones. Reverbs are particularly problematic because they are spacial by nature and rarely sound the same through headphones as they do through speakers.

There's no reason a good mix couldn't come from mixing with headphones, but just as with any mixing environment, you have to make sure your mixes transfer well to other playback systems. If you are getting good mixes, you're probably compensating for the different spacial information you're getting (or not getting) from headphones without being aware of it. Nothing wrong with that at all!

Carry on.

[Picking Moose]

I just like to clarify that in my post I don't imply that mixing with headphones is better that mixing with monitors.
I am not in the least comparing the two.
What I am "suggesting" is that a cheap set of monitors costing.. say.. 200$, will most likely sound far far worst in a non treated room that a pair of headphones costing the same.

[Rudy4]

I've got good cans and a set of Event 20/20s that sound great and don't fatigue me.

It might not be a issue for some, but one slight fly in the ointment of just having headphones is what happens when you have 4 or 5 people involved with some sound decisions while mixing. I've had this happen several times, and I'm not sure how it could have been done if I wasn't mixing on good monitors.

[louparte]

I agree with the OP. It's something of a rat-race.

You need both I guess. But I am a skeptic of the whole idea of 'accurate monitors'.
People are listening on ear-buds today. Are monitors accurate for those?

In the future, I'll be spending my money on pro-audio buds (if such things exist) & headphones - not monitors.
I think you have to mix for ear buds & car radios. I am no pro. But I am not sure how well monitors line-up with ear-buds.


FWIW, I have Alesis M1 Mk2's, HD280's, SL440's, SRH440's SONY MDR V900's & K240's.

The headphones that sound the closest to my monitors are the HD280's. Neither sound very good IMO. But people tell me they are 'accurate'.

The headphones I like the best are the K240's. I use the monitors & those two sets of headphones for mixing.
I don't mix only on monitors. I bounce back & forth. I test it on the monitors & then on the HD280's & later on the K-240's.

BTW, the best mix I ever made was on an iPad in an airport using K240's.

[KevWind]

Originally Posted by louparte

You need both I guess. But I am a skeptic of the whole idea of 'accurate monitors'.

Then you should be skeptical of accurate Hp's as well because the same basic electronic criteria is requisite for either. One difference is the cost ratio for accuracy and the main difference is in the room environment for speakers vs. it not being a factor for HP's or Buds.

People are listening on ear-buds today. Are monitors accurate for those?

Yes well mixed on monitors will translate very well to ear buds, Always

In the future, I'll be spending my money on pro-audio buds (if such things exist) & headphones - not monitors.

You should do what ever you think suits your wants/needs best.

I think you have to mix for ear buds & car radios. I am no pro. But I am not sure how well monitors line-up with ear-buds.

Actually this is one of two common myths and misconceptions about modern music. Again if something is well mixed on monitors it will always translate well to HP's while the converse is not necessarily true. ( read 'soniclad's" post, as he touches on some of the reasons why).

Now it is true that if you have just listened to a well mixed piece on a good monitors then slap on the HP's or buds, it will in fact sound different (better or worse, is subjective) but it will have a different sonic signature.

But if you take a well monitor mixed piece and just listen on Hp's or buds straight off, you will say "Oh that's sounds good"

As an example and verification of what I am saying, note that virtually every commercial piece of music that is distributed Radio,Satellite, Itunes , etc. etc. etc. was mixed on monitors.......

The other myth/misconception is that since the most likely end listening usage will be on limited dynamic and less accurate listening systems, there is no need for high level accurate recording and monitoring systems, this is mistaken.

Again the proof is in the puddin' almost everything you hear being commercially released today with any kind of success, was done in either commercial studios or high end personal studios. And much of it was mastered at high end mastering houses.

There may be a few exceptions but the reality is most of the "good stuff " was recorded, mixed and mastered on good gear, using good monitors, in good rooms, by experienced professional engineers and artists. Which pretty much says it all.

[K-vegas]

Originally Posted by Picking Moose

What I am "suggesting" is that a cheap set of monitors costing.. say.. 200$, will most likely sound far far worst in a non treated room that a pair of headphones costing the same.

I agree! But as the tracks expand beyond guitar/vocal 1+1 and the mix becomes more complex I have to side with effective monitors and a well treated room only camp. A million trips to the car to check a mix is not my idea of fun.

For the most part, the recordings I hear that could use the most help are not suffering from mixing on headphones or from an improperly treated room. If a musician has good taste they find a way to improve and when equipment becomes the main impediment they will dig deep or work around it.

BTW, I like my DT-250's too. Wish they came with a straight cord

[KenW]

I have a pair of HS50M's that I bought secondhand from an engineer in a local studio. They were in the same price range being discussed. It only took a few minutes of playback on these cheap monitors to illustrate to me what I had been missing out on. What was really eye opening was A-B'ing my own recording with other recordings that I have always admired. This is coming from one that does not have the experience and the multiple points of reference that the collective on this forum has. I guess when I can justify higher end monitors down the road, I will have had the experience and acquired multiple points of reference. In the meantime, simply switching to these cheap secondhand monitors was like a veil had been lifted.

[ombudsman]

Originally Posted by louparte

You need both I guess. But I am a skeptic of the whole idea of 'accurate monitors'.
People are listening on ear-buds today. Are monitors accurate for those?

I think you may have a misconception here.

Monitors are not intented to be "accurate for..." ear-buds... nor for consumer speakers.

That would be impossible, because all of those consumer audio products, by design, are not consistent with each other. They use resonance to increase their bass output and conform to consumer expectations and market trends. They way each one does that varies according to what is possible with the cabinet/phone design and drivers, and the design goal.

Their relationship to a flat baseline (which is what monitors are supposed to be) is not that they are the same thing, but rather, that any particular product will vary no more than a certain, fairly reasonable amount from that baseline and mostly in certain areas of the frequency spectrum (lows and highs more so than mids).

So long as that holds true, a mix made on a flat reference system will sound good and full range on the widest possible range of playback systems.

Headphones have real limitations as far as producing flat response. There's a response curve for the K701 on this page -

http://www.headphone.com/headphones/akg-k-701-white.php

The response is +3 at 200 hz and again around 4-5K. That's more like a home system than a set of monitors, except the bass boost is in a higher range.

A mix built to sound right on that system is going to sound weird on another type of home or car system which has the bass resonance peak at a lower frequency (50-100 center, depending on the size) and less of a presence peak. And it's also going to sound bass and treble deficient on a more flat system, because you're including less than you really should in those ranges where the headphones are boosted. And think about how it's going to sound on a small radio, pair of computer speakers, or built in laptop speakers, which are already bass deficient ; you're giving them even less than you could get away with, and they don't have much low end in the first place.

At best, mixing with those headphones you're kind of defeating the purpose of the similar boosts in other playback systems (and with that element of error because the other systems will be boosted elsewhere).

Mixing with flat monitors (which is all relative really, but it's the goal), at least you are rarely going to be more than about 4 db away from actual response on the playback system, except with the tiny speakers that have nothing below 100, and nobody is going to work miracles on those things.

[Picking Moose]

Although, as I previously stated, I would in no way suggest that mixing/mastering on headphones is better than with monitors, nor that my K-701 are great cans for the job...

here is a track of mine edited mixed and mastered solely using the K-701

https://soundcloud.com/pickingmoose/its-all-gone

[louparte]

kevwind: (emphasis added)

"That said I would say that real advantage of mixing on monitors is that if done correctly, where it sounds great over a number of different types of speakers , it will in fact also sound great with headphones or ear buds always"

I'm also skeptical when I hear people use the words 'always' or 'never'.

[ljguitar]

Originally Posted by louparte

I'm also skeptical when I hear people use the words 'always' or 'never'.

Hi lou...

Agreed. I rarely use 'never/always'

Many folks who are getting into recording just want to record a few tunes and mix them them down into digital form (CDr, mp3, AAC etc) for family, friends, to sell at coffee house gigs.

If I'm somewhere your are playing, I'm there to hear you. Chances are if I buy your CDr, I'm doing it to support you and your music, not because I was driven to purchase it (Tommy Emmanuel and Phil Keaggy excepted). If I liked your music, I'll rip it into iTunes and put it on the iPod/iPhone.

So your average recording, done in your basement or living room with a Zoom H2 and mixed in Garage Band, Reaper, or Audacity is acceptable, and it's fine with me.

Quality of recording is not my number 1 consideration… when buying music. It may not even be #2 or #3.

In fact if I'm wanting to learn tunes, I track them down on YouTube, or home produced CDr and listen till the ideas form. I've never found myself even once having the thought "Gee, it would have been mixed better if he'd used better reference monitors".

Doug Young uses very high end gear, which he's been herding down the road for years (improving the quality of the gear). But I have recordings of his which are my favorites from a decade ago, and many generations of equipment ago.

Better equipment doesn't improve our playing. And I'm convinced average listeners (my brother & his wife, my mom, my wife, my gigging partner, my friends who come to the coffee house) don't discern the difference since they are playing it in the car, on their clock radio w/ internal CD. My Aunt (80 yrs old) plays it on a $50 warehouse Stereo System. On her system, I sound as good as Eric Clapton!

I ran a small acoustic studio for 8 years without reference monitors, just simple open air Sennheiser headphones. I tested my recordings/mix on boom-box, car stereos, home stereos, and learned how they responded. Took about a month to have them dialed in.

People who visited my studio often had a ProTools interface at home, but couldn't get the results we did, because we used great mics, prosumer grade preamps, and Mark of the Unicorn interfaces and software, and had an acoustic friendly recording space.

I think a good point to remember is if you want really expensive results, it's probably cheaper to hire a studio and pay them the $35-150 hour. In the end you will spend less money, use better equipment, and your CD will be professionally mixed, and mastered. And you won't have outdated recording gear sitting around the house.