How do I achieve good translation and make my mix sound good on even poor quality speakers?

[Moniatre]

Thanks for the great feedback! I've been mixing stuff for quite some time now and I think that soundwise I have become a lot better since I started. But when comparing to commercial mixes I often realize theres still a difference in terms of clarity, punch and also the way it translates on different speakers. I don't have good monitors yet but I was planning on getting some rokit 6 g3s. It's just hard to tell what difference it will make to the music I make because I've never had proper ones. But now I think it would make sense at this point. What I've also noticed is that my previous mixes sound better on different systems when I focus more on the mid-range of the mix as on cheap systems the lows and highs are often "cut off".

[el-bo (formerly ebow)]

I was planning on getting some rokit 6 g3s.

i'm currently researching monitors, with a view to possibly upgrading some time

from everything i have read, you might be best avoiding the rokit models if you are looking for anything even slightly accurate. apparently their vxt models are better, but they are also a big chunk more expensive

i have kinda settled on the jbl lsr305's. will be going into town tomorrow to have a listen

[Passing Bye]

...without a need to even check again.

That's the ideal outcome. You have one reference system. You become so familiar with that system (doing lots and lots of listening to music you're very familiar with) that you negate the need to keep checking with other playback systems. That's what has worked for me - I don't check my mixes/masters on any other system other than my working studio environment - and no ones ever told me that a mix or master didn't translate well to another playback system. One of the most important things in audio production in general is having points of reference - my post is presenting an ideal situation.

Until someone reaches that, ideal or most obvious is that he reference as much as he can outside and become absolutely confident till he reaches that point, but one needs to reach it and that's the thing, you can advocate your case now, but you reached it referencing, not following same advice you are giving to stick with what is in front of him only

[do_androids_dream]

...you ain't mixing for your room listening...

That sentence there tells me that you may be unsure of what a reference point actually is. One is not mixing for 'room listening' - you're making decisions about your mix from a point of reference - that point of reference being your studio/room/mixing space that you are (hopefully) very, very familiar with the sound of. The whole point is to become so familiar with a certain set-up that you no longer have to keep checking mixes on other systems.

@Burillo - yes, that guy from Porcupine Tree has done some lovely mixes (didn't he do the recent King Crimson remixes?)

[Passing Bye]

The whole point is to become so familiar with a certain set-up that you no longer have to keep checking mixes on other systems.

Again, one needs to become that, not just rely blindly on what he have and some music that he didn't heard anywhere else than in that same setup

[Nightpolymath]

There is a conundrum here in that one of the purposes of a mix is to get a good pre-master; but to do the mastering any justice the mixer should be the last person in the world to do it. At least leave the track to simmer and sit for about a week or more before examining it again on the master bus, with a fresh pair of ears (and eyes). A near field setup in the mixing room (with a ball-sized sweet spot about as big as a man's head) is only as good as the calibration performed to get a flat field response, or you'd be fooling yourself into thinking that you're making the right EQ decisions. This is one situation where the visual feedback is important as well, both with a running waveform and a frequency spread in order to compare with reference tracks and the response band of typical consumer devices. As a lot of folks have mentioned one gets better with practice and with familiarity with their own equipment and workflow.

[Moniatre]

@el-bo: I had heard that the rp6s get used a lot and are quite popular for mixing. But I've also come across comments saying that they have too much bass and a weak mid-range. What do you think about the Yamaha HS8?

[ThePresent]

For monitors, this article was a real eyeopener for me
http://www.mixedbymarcmozart.com/2014/1 ... hen-radio/

[el-bo (formerly ebow)]

@el-bo: I had heard that the rp6s get used a lot and are quite popular for mixing. But I've also come across comments saying that they have too much bass and a weak mid-range. What do you think about the Yamaha HS8?

the rokit's seem to be popular within a certain crowd that expects to hear hyped bass.

i haven't heard the hs8 because they are outside my size and price range. i have heard good things about them

got to hear the jbl's today. though the listening environment was far from ideal, i came away very impressed. nothing seemed to pull focus in a way that could prove too fatiguing over time. i am pretty much set on them, but probably can't afford till the end of the year

[dewgong]

Minimse your use of fx. It sounds irrelevant but the number one mix killer is the premature addition of fx. They mask the flaws in the source material and its here where you'll notice a contrast between systems. That convolution reverb that smoothes the rough edges sounds like a mess in mono.

Also make sure that you look at a spectrogram to spot any frequency regions which are clipping

[camsr]

That convolution reverb that smoothes the rough edges sounds like a mess in mono.

Nothing wrong with a bit of reverb for the mono enjoyment. Overall I prefer to use echo like delays, reverb is not as desired as it used to be.

[Aiynzahev]

Keep your sounds and mix as basic as you can get away with. Spend time on the most important elements, reference other tracks, make sure you're source material is good to start with (samples, synth sounds whatever it might be).

[2ZrgE]

I know a good number of producers who can turn out amazing sounding mixes on headphones they've come to know like the back of their hand though. If you're serious about it, just keep working on improving things as you write music, it'll happen eventually.

Recently I read an interview where Laidback Luke (for the haters: yes I know his sound sucks etc. pp ) states he produces everything on headphones for almost 20 years now, and always in mono before finalizing to stereo as the last step. He also said that his hearing is so developed now that he cannot deal with the sweat spot of a studio environment any more (rough translation by me, interview is in German.)

So it's all about learning your gear, may it be headphones or a cheap kitchen radio.

[dewgong]

That convolution reverb that smoothes the rough edges sounds like a mess in mono.

Nothing wrong with a bit of reverb for the mono enjoyment. Overall I prefer to use echo like delays, reverb is not as desired as it used to be.

Reverb is hard to get right in mono. Much of its effect is in the space it introduces. This might be because I alwas apply reverb as a send. I guess it sounds better as an insert

[camsr]

I use two sends. Actually I use more than 2, but the mono reverb is usually on the stem.