come inside, a stupid producing question of mine :(

[Magpie]

mkay, I dunno exactly how to say it, so please be patient

is there any way to "objectively" know how a project is sounding without listening it?

See, I learned computer graphic design. I can open a picture in Photoshop, see the histogram and know what the picture is made of. Even if I don't look at it.

I can look at the levels of a picture and tweek the colors of, make it look good even if I use a very bad monitor plugged into a cheap video card. I know that when the picture will come back from the printing shop, it will be good looking.

So I wonder if there's anyway to know what a sound file is, even if I don't own a good soundcard, ampli and good speakers. (that's not clear, huh?)

Well, the only good audio "thing" I own is my AKG K141. Good for monitoring and composing but when come mixing... And I can't count on my audio system. It's old and of average quality.

AM I getting clearer now?

Anyway to get a good mixing even if my system is not that good?

hehe I should had begun with that question but I'm French speaking, so

Thanx for only taking the time to read this!

*me need a rest

[moldofunker]

That's a good question

I guess you'll need a realtime spectrum analyzer and try to learn the freqs. Music IS math anyway

[Hink]

Adobe Audition has a histogram, though I don't know if you would find it useful, something you have to read up on for sure. They do have a demo
http://www.adobe.com/products/audition/main.html

[xoxos]

with sound, transduction from the file to the ear goes thru several stages, not just one monitor. as such, it's essentially ingenuine to shoot for objective monitoring in one system.

take yer cd over to your pal's house.. play it in their boom box.. play it in your mammy's boombox.. the best way to objective familiarity w/ your monitoring is to hear how it translates, then you know eg. your system is bass heavy or whatever.

[kritikon]

I'll second that.........if you know how your mixes sound on other systems, then you'll know what frequency bands your own setup either emphasizes or muffles etc. People used to make decent mixes on YamahaNS10 monitors (which are horrible speakers). They did it because they knew the monitors extremely well - they couldn't hear a decent mix on them, but they knew that bass needed cutting by x number of dBs if it was audible on an NS10 - knew which parts of the higher mids to boost and cut etc.

And to some degree you can see a mix with a spectral analyser. There are very general frequency shapes that decent mixes have for specific types of music, although there is absolutely no hard and fast rule.
So to some degree you can improve a mix by looking at the frequency graph and adjusting accordingly. You can improve a mix that way, but I very much doubt you can get a good mix that way.

And I can't see how you can channel record by visuals - that would very difficult. And really, recording the channels well and getting good independent channel sound is the biggest battle in getting a good mix.

[Steven West]

I'm going to get shot down severely for admiting this to you Magpie I'm sure... In airplane terminology - I often mix 'flying on vector instruments only.' Meaning that a pilot rarely looks out the window when flying, but relies on all the instrument readings in front of him. I barely even have the volume up to 2 when I mix, and just simply rely on the balance of the stereo meters, spectrograms, stereo imagers width and balance, etc.
If it looks BIG in levels, and still sounds nice at a low volume, I usually just go with it then.

So in answer to your question - it can be done.
As to the length of any respect I might've had here - very short!