Studio Audio
Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network limitations. Refreshing the page usually helps.
You are currently reading a thread in /mu/ - Music
You are currently reading a thread in /mu/ - Music
/mu/, why do we bother using studio monitor speakers and acoustically treating our control rooms if we could take the room out of the equation by using studio headphones to produce our music?
>>60723621
Because sometimes other people want to listen to, or people want to hear how it sounds on speakers, like how most people will listen to it
>>60723621
"Headphones are really pretty much shit, all of them.
Headphones cannot get image or tonal information remotely correct. The only thing that headphones do is get rid of problems associated with rooms (smearing details and uneven bass response).
The fact that headphones are so shitty should stand as a warning to those that strive for super limited dispersion and massive room treatments.
Oh, and your A5's suck as well, just not as bad as headphones."
"You can't hear past 20Hz-20kHz, and the majority of music will not have important information below 40Hz. A speaker that rolls off at 40Hz will still put out bass down to 20Hz, just not as loud.. the room dictates much of the response below 200Hz anyway, so flat to 20Hz is not a speaker spec that matters, it's a room measurement that matters.
Vanatoo Transparent One's will do everything that you are asking, and cost $500 for everything. Setup near field they will out perform any set of headphones in all measures outside of the 40Hz-20Hz range."
Because headphones are shit. I only see them useful in maybe identifying microdetails in a mix you might not want, but even then, near field monitors can do that just as well.
Headphones are a lifestyle product, not a high-fidelity product.
>>60723804
Forgive my ignorance, senpai, but what is "imaging," in the audio sense?
>>60725122
location of a sound source
>>60723804
lol where'd you find that garbage?
>>60723804
can this be the new copypasta
>>60723621
wearing those same headphones right now desu
>>60725320
Yes plz.
>>60725320
>>60725380
same guy
>>60725412
nice try big guy
>>60725251
>lol where'd you find that garbage?
It's not "garbage." Headphones are indeed shit. There's only so much a 40-50mm driver can do.
I know that comment won't go over well on a board filled with 16-20 years olds who can't have a dedicated listening space in which to employ a proper speaker setup (and who love their based Senns), but headphones lag behind speakers in pretty much everything aside from "room problems," which can now be easily mitigated with near field monitor setups and DSP room correction.
They're a lifestyle product. If you prefer their music in your head "intimacy" fair enough, but they aren't as accurate as speakers/monitors.
Meh a lot of good electronic music has (supposedly) been mixed on headphones. I don't really care anyways but it seems like there's one super argumentative guy here and I wanted to anger him.
If anyone here is interesting in some desktop production and wants a good monitor, check these out:
http://noaudiophile.com/JBL_LSR305/
<<<Kills the headphones in the OP that nosedives after 10KHZ like all headphones.
>>60725603
Headphones aren't as accurate as $100k monitors in a professionally treated mastering studio. But good headphones (HD600s or similar) will outperform anything less than a well equipped, well treated home studio.
>which can now be easily mitigated with near field monitor setups
still expensive, and your Vanatoo Transparent One's don't cut it either
>and DSP room correction
enjoy your golf ball sized sweet spot
Stereo speakers also can't image for shit either. You're a pleb if you don't have a full wave field synthesis array.
>>60723621
you dont know what youre talking about
>>60725819
>I don't really care anyways but it seems like there's one super argumentative guy here and I wanted to anger him.
He's an edgy Steve Albini wannabe
>>60725882
No. Response graphs don't lie. Enjoy that 10Khz rolloff.
>Headphones imaging better than speakers.
I've heard it all now. I get you're attached to your Sennheiser veil sound and confuse all those little microdetails you can pick up as a result of the driver being .5" from your ears with "accuracy," and "imaging," but it's not.
Like I said, headphones are only good for picking out the fine details you might or might not want in a mix.
>This issue with headphones comes down to isolation. The best studio headphones will block outside noise (computer fan, HVAC, room noise, etc.) so you hear only what plays through the headphones, as much as possible. This is perfect for editing, so you can catch and enhance or remove the finest details of your audio in processing.
>But this kind of sound isolation is bad for recording. The better the isolation gets, the less of your own voice you’ll hear with your own ears. Instead, you’ll hear yourself more through bone conduction.
>I assume you mean for mixing, not recording. In my opinion you really need both headphones and monitors. I find it much easier to clean up the audio (pops and clicks) and do most editing tasks using headphones. However, you really need monitors to correctly appreciate the stereo imaging and spatial placement of instruments and (usually) the bass frequencies. I check my mixes on my monitors and headphones as well as in the car and with earbuds. It's always going to be a question of balance or compromise as all of them color the sound in different ways but people listen to music many different ways too.
Refining a few a details is all they're good for. And as a high-fidelity product, they're shit.
>>60725882
>HD600
Shit. And lol that 12DB plunge. Sennheiser veil.
A variety of DSP corrected budget (and shitty) speakers like Daytons and Micca outperform them by leaps.
http://noaudiophile.com/DSP_Corrections/corrected.jpg
>>60726139
>No. Response graphs don't lie. Enjoy that 10Khz rolloff.
There are plenty that don't do that.
>Headphones imaging better than speakers.
I didn't claim that, idiot. Speakers are only "better" as far as it's assumed by the person doing the mix that it will be listened to on a traditional speaker configuration, where localization is crudely controlled by a panpot. Headphones can do a much better job than stereo speakers with things like binaural recordings (real or synthesized), although a stereo dipole or other configuration works better.
>But this kind of sound isolation is bad for recording. The better the isolation gets, the less of your own voice you’ll hear with your own ears. Instead, you’ll hear yourself more through bone conduction.
Why the fuck are you talking about recording? Literally everyone records vocals wearing headphones. Are you just copying and pasting stuff without reading it?
Here are some more reasons that speakers suck:
Bad approximation of a point sound source; the apparent location changes with frequency unless you use concentric speakers (and these have their own problems). Ported enclosures have bad (frequently terrible) time domain response (you can only have good bass extension and good time domain response simultaneously if you spend a shit ton of money). Diffraction around the cabinet creates colored reflections; even if the on-axis response is flat, the off-axis response probably won't be (again, the only solution here is to spend a lot of money). The speakers have to be carefully placed and the room treated (preferably with measurements). If you want really accurate sound, you'll have bass traps occupying a significant part of the room. And you need a big room to begin with. The funny thing is that audiophiles with absurdly expensive turntables and whatnot typically don't pay any attention to this at all.
Headphones don't have any of these problems.
>>60726287
>http://noaudiophile.com/DSP_Corrections/corrected.jpg
What do they look like when measured 6 inches off axis?
>>60723621
because its very hard to play acoustic instruments while wearing headphones. especially since i usually process them through synthesis and need to hear the raw sound and what is being synthesized mixed together
>>60726366
>What do they look like when measured 6 inches off axis?
Who cares? Do you a problem keeping your head still?
1- you don't only hear through your ears (google psychoacoustics)
2- a low freq soundwave is large. soundwaves are perturbations of the elastic media.. in this case air.
20hz wavelength = 17.2 meters / 56.5 feet
40hz wavelength = 8.6 / 28.25
etc
of course you dont need a full oscillation of the lowest freq sound wave.. but some space is necesary for soundwaves to properly build up.
3. music mixing standard is thought for normal stereo speaker hearing. so the whole spacialization of sounds, intensity, coloration.. is made for these types of systems.. headphones just put things in a different way than intended (not that its bad, its just not as intended). also when youre mixing music you do take in mind a natural reverb that will be present in the hearing place.. how to say it.. if you look for books on acustic treatment for mixing rooms..the room reveberation is present. no one wants to mix in an anecoic room.. reverberation times are low but not crazy low.. you want a good but realistic medius where sound can move around.
and going back to point 1: hearing music with your body and all the information your brain uses from the non-ear hearing is a lot. for instance the time difference on wich sounds hit one ear and the other plus how reverbartions of the phisical transmision of sounds through the body (lets say sounds touch your chest at sometime and then go to the ear, with some sounds absorted,etc,etc).. give you localization of the sound source in space.
and sorry for my shit english, not my native tounge.
im a sound engineer btw.
>>60726531
>Who cares? Do you a problem keeping your head still?
What if someone else is in the room?
What about the time domain response? What about distortion measurements?
The problem is that DSP room correction makes all of these things worse. It's only good if the room is already well treated to begin with.
The funny thing is that DSP correction typically works very well for headphones, provided their distortion performance is good to begin with and they don't have huge notches in the frequency response.
question from a noob
>what are headphone amplifiers? I've seen a few of them on amazon and don't completely understand what they're for
>what makes them so expensive?
>would it allow me to boost the bass on my headphones, or is there a similar device that would?
>>60726339
>binaural recordings
Snake oil. You can't get around the difference of everyone's pinnae and Head Related Transfer Function. Binaural recordings (from what I've heard) also do a poor job of imaging sounds that are supposed to be a few feet in front of you (like a lead singer). You can't get away with proper spacial illusion when you have drivers a half inch away from your ears.
>The funny thing is that audiophiles with absurdly expensive turntables and whatnot typically don't pay any attention to this at all.
Hi-fi listening is a different experience than studio listening where accuracy is prioritized over everything else. We don't interact with sound in the real world while sitting in an anechoic chamber, and reflections aren't inherently a bad thing (re: Floyd Toole). That's another reason why headphones are shit in that regard.
But that's a different subject.
I don't disagree all that much with your other thoughts, but DSP correction will solve a lot of those issues with speakers in the future. I get you love your headphones (as all people who were raised on earbuds and the headphone presentation naturally do), but they're headed for obsolescence. The only quality that will keep them somewhat relevant is their lifestyle appeal.
>>60726668
Indeed. Headphones simply can't present a soundwave as it is naturally interacted with in the real world.
>>60726843
>You can't get around the difference of everyone's pinnae and Head Related Transfer Function.
You're correct that performance is limited (although not really bad) on headphones, but that doesn't mean they're snake oil. They work perfectly fine with ambiophonics, which I alluded to. They don't work worth a shit (and nothing else attempting to give a realistic impression of space will either) on an ordinary stereo speaker configuration.
>Hi-fi listening is a different experience than studio listening where accuracy is prioritized over everything else. We don't interact with sound in the real world while sitting in an anechoic chamber, and reflections aren't inherently a bad thing (re: Floyd Toole).
It's more a matter of controlling low frequency modes, not eliminating all reflections.
>DSP correction will solve a lot of those issues with speakers in the future
There are plenty of speakers that use DSP to time-align the drivers and correct the time domain performance. But they're fucking expensive. And I don't think that's going to change all that much, as the drivers and enclosures still have to be very good to get a good level of performance. DSP is the icing on the cake, not a band aid fix. It's still going to be in the neighborhood of $5k for a pretty good pair of speakers.
>>60727179
I meant snake oil in the sense that Headfiers talk it up like it's a suitable replacement for the real sense of space and separation and even localization you get with stereo (I don't consider the bass guitar being positioned on the left side of my head or the drums positioned in the back of my skull/on my neck "good imaging"). Binaural on headphones can never 3 dimensionally project a sound in real space like speakers. It just moves the sounds from inside your head to a bit outside (so I guess it does project in a sense, but the effect is not all that compelling). Why this impresses headfiers, I have no clue.
>It's more a matter of controlling low frequency modes, not eliminating all reflections.
True.
>There are plenty of speakers that use DSP to time-align the drivers and correct the time domain performance. But they're fucking expensive. And I don't think that's going to change all that much, as the drivers and enclosures still have to be very good to get a good level of performance. DSP is the icing on the cake, not a band aid fix. It's still going to be in the neighborhood of $5k for a pretty good pair of speakers.
Cost should lower in the future, as tech costs always do.
>>60725603
>says its not garbage
>doesnt provide a source for those quotes
>>60723804
>Headphones are a lifestyle product, not a high-fidelity product.
That's objectively wrong tho DESU
Question.
Literally who bothers with this cancer?
>>60725412
U fucking idiot.
Also since this thread is still here, I'd like to ask.
If one lives in a janky attic, with no hope of attaining proper acoustics, would buying monitors be utterly pointless for making stuff? Mind you, i've been making some good stuff just with headphones, but the mixes didn't always translate to speakers or anything, just my phone, and from what i understand, headphones don't always accurately show music in some frequencies which would be why?
Idk if that made sense, but i'm just trying to avoid buyer's remorse here.
>>60723621
Not only should you not just listen to mixes on headphones, you should bounce them down to 192kbs mp3s, burn them to a CD and listen to it in your car
>>60726828
Headphone amps are used for boosting the signal level for some of the higher powered headphones. They're expensive because they're typically only used for higher end phones, and designing amps with good noise characteristics requires quality components.
If you wanna boost bass on a set of phones, you'd need some sort of equalisation. Some amps have a form of this (treble/bass volume knobs). It can also be done in software.
>>60723681
yes, i'm sure most people listen to music on studio monitors
I've never really understood the whole importance of studio monitors, as nobody listens to music on them in fact most people now don't even have hi-fi audio gear, they probably have shitty stock car speakers and listen to music at home on their TVs or phones
>>60730237
>I've never really understood the whole importance of studio monitors
They're like a magnifying glass with which to zoom into your mix and examine all its fine details for the purpose of finding flaws. Studio cans are the same.
They're not really designed for entertainment listening. This might seem counterintuitive.
"Well, if they're so accurate and reveal all these details, wouldn't they make better hi-fi speakers/headphones too?"
Think of it like a photographer blowing up his photo to edit/examine his work. He's seeing a more detailed picture, but in a presentation that his final photograph won't resemble.
>>60729285
>i've been making some good stuff
Top kek
>>60730237
Here's an example:
Suppose you get a mix to sound good on two sets of speakers. One pair has too much bass, the other has too little. To get the sound you like, you're gonna end up cutting the bass on the bass-heavy speakers and boosting it on the bass-light ones.
Suppose you then play the mixes on the opposite pair. The mix you added bass to goes on the bass-heavy speakers and drowns you in bass while the mix you cut bass from goes on the bass-light ones and there's just none left left.
But if you mix on studio speakers, you'll only hear as much bass as you put in. Whoever likes speakers with more bass is gonna hear more bass on their system and whoever likes less is gonna hear less. But you're not going too far either way.
>>60731026
Shut up nigger
MDR7509 master race checking in
Headphones are just another point of reference. You still should use monitors.
because headphones dont give you the full feeling, especially bass. music isnt as enjoyable if its just headphones. speakers fill the entire area with sound. headphones are just in your own head.
>>60733856
>Hi /mu/ just wanted to let you know i've never actually tried a good pair of studio headphones k thx bye
>>60725603
yes it is a lot of shit you're quoting there. "headphones can't get tonal information right". lol.
the only thing with headphones is that you won't feel the bass the same.
room correction software works only to an extent. you can only correct a skewed room by acoustic treatment. out of standing waves, frequency and phase response, the only one that you can TRY to correct with software is the frequency response. but it only works to a very limited extent. i have a good video that explain why, i'll post it if i can found it
