Headphone mixing

[jkotz]

Sound on Sound recently had what looked to be a fairly comprehensive article covering headphones and mixing. Unfortunately my copy of the mag was missing 15 pages in the middle, including most of that article. That being said, I do most of my work on 'phones from Etymotic Research and can tell you that what I found most important to learn was to HEAR bass frequencies rather than feel them. Any half decent sub will produce bass that'll feel nice and thumpy. That doesn't mean your low end isn't a pile of mud.

[where02190]

No human "hears" 20hz. Headphones combined with a sub equals time misalignment. Not to mention the phones over your ears are going to seriously impede hearing anything originating from outside the cans.

[Kingston]

If it's such a myth, explain why more top selling recordings were mixed on them than all other monitors combined over the last 25 years?

I did already.

[where02190]

No you expressed your opinion. That does not and never will change the fact that the NS-10 has been an intregal part of several decades of hit songs, and the most trusted name in control room monitors in the history of recorded music.

[jkotz]

1. I must not have been very clear if you thought I was suggesting the use of a sub with headphones. What I was trying to say is that I think hearing low frequencies rather than feeling them is the biggest adjustment most people will have to make when mixing on 'phones because when mixing with monitors and a sub, hearing the low end accurately is incredibly difficult.

As far as the statement that "no human "hears" 20Hz" is concerned, that's just not accurate. While it's true that hearing pure tones below 30Hz isn't common, it's not impossible. The main issue in testing is generating pure tones at those frequencies with the requisite SPLs to achieve equivalent loudness to the other (higher) frequencies being tested, while at the same not causing a physical sensation (or risking physical harm). Pure tones aside, everyone hears these frequencies in the way they interact with the rest of the spectrum.
To my understanding, most audiometric testing evaluates low frequency hearing by evaluating the perception of those interactions rather than attempting to test pure tone hearing.

2. Monitoring at 100+ dB SPL is nuts! The recommended range for prolonged exposure is something like 35-85 dB SPL. 100 dB SPL is the range for a gas powered lawn mower. I think anyone who monitors at those levels for longer than the length of a track pretty much deserves whatever hearing loss they have.

3. For the guy who was asking about figuring out what his hearing deficiencies were: the best thing you can do is get an audiometric evaluation. They're a lot more comprehensive than your typical hearing test, but because of costs, they're usually only given to people with specific medical problems. What I've found though, is that a lot of med schools and universities will do them for free when they're doing hearing related research (and there is a lot of that being done these days). I've had them done three times since 2000 (the first part of this post is basically me regurgitating what I learned during my first eval), and I can actually follow the effects of the fan noise at my day job. The other nice thing is finding out about all the stuff they're working on (Direct electrical stimulation of the auditory nerve, Regrowth of dead hair-cells, etc.).

[stash98]

The NS-10's are standard because of how mixes translate so well to small stereos. It's not just because they are standard, that's silly. They have a midrange curve that translates very well to about any system.

The problem with NS-10s is that they are very very ear fatiguing. So most mixers use them in combination with another set of monitors.

[leahzero]

I thought NS-10s were popular because they sounded terrible, like most budget home/car/etc. speakers, which was why stuff mixed carefully on them translated well to other systems?

Who knows, there's so much mythology surrounding that anyway when you Google them.

[Kingston]

I thought NS-10s were popular because they sounded terrible, like most budget home/car/etc. speakers, which was why stuff mixed carefully on them translated well to other systems?

Who knows, there's so much mythology surrounding that anyway when you Google them.

no shit. the problem is that the usual audio engineer rarely has any kind of scientific/academic background so you'll see all kinds of silly mythology spread around as solid facts. add to that marketing that feeds the ignorance. uh oh.

[Kingston]

No you expressed your opinion.

or it just *might* be you completely ignored my argument. people tend to do that when they can't produce a solid counter-argument.

[JeffreyCreel]

So, when something sounds much better on headphones, this is a telltale sign of bad mixing? Headphones are more "forgiving" of phase errors and the like?

[bduffy]

So, when something sounds much better on headphones, this is a telltale sign of bad mixing? Headphones are more "forgiving" of phase errors and the like?

Hmmm. It's a telltale sign of good mixing if it sounds good on both! But if it sounds good only on headphones, then you spent too much time on them (believe me, I know!). they are more forgiving of stereo effects in the sense that, in headphones, you'll hear that stereo effect perfecty, but it might not amount to much in the real world. Take frequent breaks and get that sucker on speakers as soon as possible to find out what's actually happening!

[Kingston]

So, when something sounds much better on headphones, this is a telltale sign of bad mixing? Headphones are more "forgiving" of phase errors and the like?

there's a few things to consider.

1. maybe the mix was meant for headphones in the first place? there's plenty of music done like this, although not so much for commercial consumption.

2. a great mix sounds brilliant on headphones as well.

3. headphones tend to mask problematic transients and glaring EQ and phasing errors so a bad mix might sound as a good as a great one on headphones. making decisions on tasty compression that will be guaranteed to sound good on monitoring is next to impossible.

4. you can mix ok on a headphones, but you have to learn to spot the problem areas and you need a reference for this. even a cheap mono multimedia speaker will help.

5. you will still likely make very different mixing decisions on headphones compared to monitoring, especially regarding panning and the amount of reverb/delay and other imaging related effects. the relationship of instrumentation will likely be different as well.

maybe others have found more areas to consider as well when mixing with headphones?

[where02190]

1. I must not have been very clear if you thought I was suggesting the use of a sub with headphones. What I was trying to say is that I think hearing low frequencies rather than feeling them is the biggest adjustment most people will have to make when mixing on 'phones because when mixing with monitors and a sub, hearing the low end accurately is incredibly difficult.

Absolutely not true. Provided the room is acoustically tuned mixing with full range monitors and a sub is no more difficult than mixing with full range monitors alone. Mixing with headphones accurately is far, far more difficult.

NS-10's are very inaccurate, and extremely fatiguing, but also quite truth telling as any experienced engineer knows. A mix that sounds good on NS-10's will translate very well to any playback system. Also experienced engineers know that lowe volume monitoring is crutial not only with the NS-10's but any monitor. Ear fatigue will occur quite quickly and when it does your day is done. Typically mix levels rarely exceed 75-80dbA for an experienced engineer, and often are much lower. Not only does it help to lessen ear fatigue, but the human hearing is far more accurate at these levels that at louder levels, due to the Fletcher Munson curve. A mix done at low volume will translate fine at higher levels, however the opposite is absolutely not true, a mix done at loud levels will always sound like ass when turned down.

Yamaha didn't even market the NS-10's a studio monitors for several years, they became the monitor studios bought because engineers wanted them. It had absolutely nothing to do with marketing.

[Kingston]

A mix that sounds good on NS-10's will translate very well to any playback system.

this is absolute bollocks. A mix that sounds *right* on the NS-10 will translate very well to any playback system. As you so aptly put, when the NS-10 mix sounds "inaccurate, and extremely fatiguing", that's when it'll translate.

trying to make a mix sound pleasing and enjoyable on the NS-10 and you've f**ked the whole thing already.

in fact I would urge anyone to try it. It's a great lesson on learning monitors and mix translation.

the keywords are brittle, no-bass and 2khz.

[bduffy]

Amazing that can be the standard!