Headphones vs. Monitors

[zircon]

jebudas; So? A TON of stuff happens when you're listening to monitors. Most of it you don't want to hear if you want a true mix. eg. The different sound waves interacting, adding or subtracting with eachother - which they wouldn't on headphones.

[frz]

It's better to mix on headphones, TECHNICALLY, since if both the headphones and speakers in question have the same frequency response you get a more accurate audio image from headphones

that is highly questionable, no sound in nature comes directly from inside your head (besides those little voices...you guys hear them too right?). You can have a better frequency response - if you don't have equivalent monitoring.

I notice a lot of people discussing the "exaggerated stereo image", but when you really think about it the number one audio listening source in this day and age is probably going to be portable audio w/ headphones. then probably the car after that, then home stereo.

So I'd argue a bad headphone image is a bad image in general.

that's a good point. the more ipods around the more doublechecking on headphones is needed.

[Toxikator]

No sound in nature cmes directly from inside the head, this is true. However, the technicality of a stereo recording would be for it to be binaural; the IDEAL speaker setups try to be as isolating as possible. It is possible to record "depth" and location with a binaural headphone signal, that would be proper stereo imaging.

It's sort of like the difference between recording a track with concert hall and setting up your speakers at the end of the concert hall because that ambience is more natural.

I would argue that the BEST stereo reference concievable (the ideal, if you will) would be a completely flat response across the entirety of the audible spectrum with perfectly binaural stereo imaging, instantaneous pressure change (no amplitude smearing or pull), in a totally silent, absent environment.

Of course, that can never happen, but there are certain ideals toward which we strive. Right now, monitor speakers provide better frequency response, which is the most important feature. Headphones provide more accurate stereo fields and less smearing (they act like a magnifying glass; inconsistencies your monitors don't show will appear), and some headphones (the kind with earplugs on them) even work toward more silent monitoring.

Speakers still remain the choice, though not just for frequency response fidelity, but also for ease and comfort of the engineer and others in the studio.

[frz]

hehe the discussion about accuracy and fidelity is very interesting but that's not exactly the point I was trying to make, in fact even mixing with the perfect listening environment and equipment would still be mixing stuff which "isn't there" so the imaging or stereo placement is totally up to us after all, no?

i was talking about imaging because that's my 'technique' for volume relations, (backing vocals NOT siding vocals, right?) and it's easier to do with monitors (at least for me, and all the engineers I know BTW).

I find many advantages in feeling the sound and frequencies with the whole body and not just the ears, and besides that, there would be much more pro courses, DVD tutorials and masterclasses about mixing on headphones if it was that big of a deal..

easy jokes apart, the point I was into is "know the tool you're using and listen to all the music you can through it", so your ears and mind get used to the correct sound even if it's through "incorrect" setup. I did better mixes on my home stereo than with SOME monitors, just because i wasn't used to them.

I'm sorry if I'm not that clear but english is not my primary language and this psychoacustic stuff is too fuzzy to explain already.

cheers

[frz]

just another puntualization, sorry

it's that when I'm mixing I'm not making a sound "lower" I just make it more "far away" and it's easier if the source comes from in front of me rather than "inside my head".

hopefully it's clearer put this way..

[adj]

Of course, you could always try VNoPhones

[martian]

It's better to mix on headphones, TECHNICALLY, since if both the headphones and speakers in question have the same frequency response you get a more accurate audio image from headphones (less crosstalk, outside noise, and the breaks and pops that would usually pass the monitors become more apparent at close proximity and low SPLs.)

Problems arise in that headphones don't get as good frequency response (usually), they can be physically constraining (in particular if you have multiple people listening in, etc.), and they can be very fatiguing on the ears (if you listen at length, anyway).

i find its usually a fraction of the cost to get headphones with equivilent freq response accuracy to high end monitors. in application they'll be flatter anyway without the acoustic comb filtering you get in a room, where even a well treated room will be +/-10db. the only flat environments are outside or an anechoic chamber.

in regards to headphones, what you are maybe missing is that we have the pinna (outer ear) stuck between our ear canal and the real world. the comb filtering from this is bypassed when you put headphones on and has to be compensated for, to get anything like natural sound.

sit in front of your speakers and look down toward the ground, notice how much brighter and harsher the sound gets. this is because the pinna notch (used for elevation cues) becomes less prominent, so the ususal dip at around 10k gets flatter.

headphone designers have a lot of psychoacoustic considerations to make for the response they deliver. its not so clear as with speakers, where you can just aim for flat.

No sound in nature cmes directly from inside the head, this is true. However, the technicality of a stereo recording would be for it to be binaural; the IDEAL speaker setups try to be as isolating as possible. It is possible to record "depth" and location with a binaural headphone signal, that would be proper stereo imaging.

you mean head-shadowed feed into each ear from opposing speakers? like the HD plugin and a few headphone types simulate?

[aetmos]

While people can argue this day and night, you'll find that most (if not all) professional mix and master engineers will work primarily with monitors. That says something about what is better for a mix. Having some dude who only works with headphones saying that he gets *great* mixes through headphones is alost entirely meaningless. He could work entirely through his alarm clock speakers, and claim the same thing.

The best analogy I've heard is to think of headphones in the mixing and mastering stages as if they're a microscope. They're really handy when you want to focus in on something specific, but for the most part, monitors are by far the preferred way to listen. While a good set of headphones is certainly cheaper than a good set of speakers, you're setting yourself at a disadvantage using just headphones. Stereo image and bass response have already been mentioned, but headphones also generally give a more focused sound, so it's easier to not pay attention to the overall feel of the track. And even if you have a great set of headphones that say they reproduce sound accurately down to 15Hz, that's still not the same as a pair of good monitors, as we tend to _feel_ low bass through our bone structures a lot more than we really hear it.

[knot0fvipers]

microscope vs telescope....
i think you have to take into account what your listening audience is going to listen on.
if your trying to make banging electronic music with huge bass to play at a party, headphones are not going to do shit.
if your mixing music that people are most likely going to listen to on an ipod/stereo or through headphones at low volume at low volume anyway, spend all your money on a quality microscope.

[knot0fvipers]

The best analogy I've heard is to think of headphones in the mixing and mastering stages as if they're a microscope.

haha, great minds think alike ehh?

[Toxikator]

I would say magnifying glass but yeah.

The thing is most high-end headphones DO interact with the pinna, as they are the "rest on the outside of your ears" headphones, not earbuds.

Claiming that "most studios use them, so therefore they must be better" is foolish, and I could cite NS-10s, Pro Tools, hardware, etc. to prove my point. Suffice it to say that I'd imagine most studios use them because it's hard to get a producer and a band all moving about and trying to relax after 10 hours to listen on headphones

[Hink]

The best analogy I've heard is to think of headphones in the mixing and mastering stages as if they're a microscope.

haha, great minds think alike ehh?

you know, if one were to look at a painting with a microscope they're apt to miss much of the picture...so taking it in that context, I totally agree and this is proof positive that just headphones are not enough...I know many will disagree, but I feel neither headphones or monitors are more important than the other...in fact combined they may not be enough...imho it's best to listen to your mixes on as many different devices (within reason) as you can.

[frz]

I'd imagine most studios use them because it's hard to get a producer and a band all moving about and trying to relax after 10 hours to listen on headphones

I bet that's the same reason they don't do headphone concerts too..

[zircon]

Saying you can't make good electronic/dance music on headphones is stupid. I only use headphones, I write dance music (primarily), and I do just fine.

[hasenbraten]

mixing low freq. bass with headphones is like playing tennis in the dark though.

from my experience a headphone mix may or may not work on speakers, a monitor mix in most of the cases works on speakers and headphones.

when judging reverb and density of a mix. how to do that on cans when you aint got no room, no "normal" listening enviroment to base your judgement on?