Should studio monitors be flat?

Back in the late 70's I got a call to tune the monitors in a small studio control room. Knowing full well that there are lots of philosophies as to how to do this, I asked the client how they wanted the room tuned. I did my best job of explaining all the pro's and con's of the various methods.

The ultimately asked me to tune the room the way I'd want it if I was to mix there. Well with that I proceeded to tune the room flat.

A few months later I got an angry call from them. Apparently they were mastering one of their tapes and the mastering engineer told them their tape was dull and needed a lot of eq. He then asked them if they had flat monitors.

As a result, I started an unofficial poll of some of the engineers who were working at the time and the results were surprising to me.

 

I want the sound of the room and monitors to let me know what I have on tape. Having said that, I've used the same monitors for over 10 years and know them very well. To me that's more important than having a technically flat response, which there's no such thing.

A lot of people rely on their car stereos to tell them how something sounds. It's far from accurate but they know it.

The situation you described above sounds like the engineer hadn't worked in the room before, had a bad day or thought what was on tape was different than, er, what was on tape. I've mixed in studios with disastrous acoustics but once I learned the flaws I could get good sounding stuff out of them.

Like I said before, there's no such thing as a totally flat monitor so it comes down to personal preference. That's why there's so many different monitors out there.

 

I use Acoustic Research AR-2's as monitors in my studio. They are incredibly flat, but the acoustics of my room are not that good. I have an EQ connected to my monitor amp, so that I can compensate for my room. Once room acoustics have been compensated, I can then hear exactly whats on the master tape. So, my monitors are flat, but my room is not!

 

I have several "crap" systems in my studio that I use to proof recordings. I also pop them in the car sometimes. These conditions simulate where the recordings will be played, on the radio, in the car, on a walkman. If it sounds good on a transistor radio with a 2 inch speaker, it will sound fabulous on an audiophiles system. I have a cheap little Teac mini system that I proof all of my recordings on. If it sounds good on that wreched thing, it sounds good on anything. I also have a set of cheap computer speakers with a subwoofer, that I use to proof on, for the same reasons stated above.

(sorry Jamie, I just realized that this question was directed to you)

 

They're judging the sound quality and mix in their car. That's where they do most of their listening and it's the system they're most familiar with so they can tell what's going on. They actually drive around so there's road noise to make sure it doesn't cover up the vocal.

Tom Lord Alge does the same thing. He always rents Ford cars because that's the stereo he's familiar with.

It's also easier to tell if you have too much low end or not enough in your car. Those speakers cough with too much and sound anemic when there's not enough.

 

Be my guest my friend.

BTW, I check mixes (and sometimes do mixes) on crappy speakers. I have a pair of horrible sounding monitors stacked up on each other off to my side so I get a mono-ish sound but without the mono button cancellation. It really helps me get the levels nicely balanced since I'm not being fooled by hard panned tracks sounding louder. It gives me a wide stereo spread.

Back on topic, NS-10's are horrible sounding speakers. I'm sure you've seen them before. They're those small black speakers with white coned woofers that are in almost every studio. Many great mix engineers have mixed great sounding albums on those things. For some reason they translate really well. I guess you have to fight so hard to make things sound good on them that once you've gotten things balanced any other speakers will make it sound great.

 

I think many of us with good systems suffer because of this practice. If it sounds good on a 2" speaker it is likely compressed so that the bass comes through. IMHO, this technique sucks.

 

Oh yes, I know the NS-10's. I dont have them, but I have something similar. I use a pair of Audio-analyst Phase Matrix M-2's. They have a 5 inch woofer, and a little 1 inch dome tweeter.

 

When I do this, I am not listening for bass, nor do I use excessive amounts of compression. I am mainly looking to see if the vocals stand out, and the rhythm is audible. In general, I use little to no compression in my recordings.

 

Interesting. I must admit I have been guilty of this as well. I generally boost the high end in my car a bit, but this is general eq that I pretty much listen to everything with. On occasion I tone it down for overly bright records.

A while back I was preparing some old live recordings I had for hand over for mastering. I recorded these a long time ago with no eq at all direct to a Revox. On my higher end home monitor system I added a db or so at 15k to try to compensate for what I felt might have been the 7.5ips frequency rolloff. On the good system this boost was noticeable but not over the top. However, when I played this eq'd version in my car (with my normal hi boost there) it was too bright. As a result I discarded the eq, which I admittedly was wavering about on the good system. In hindsight I now much prefer the lack of boost.

But I have another story with a much different ending. Back in the 1976 I was just starting to do studio sessions. I took my first mix to cassette and played it in my car. Now I had a pretty happening car stereo for 1976. I had a Nak 550, Crown D-60 Power amp with AC inverter for power, 4 ads 2002 speakers, and a 6x9 Mesa passive subwoofer. Well my cassette from the session sounded horrid. Way too much bass, not enough high end, and levels all over the place. I was mortified. I couldn't believe how bad it was. As it turns out, my studio mixing skills still needed a tad bit of honing, but I think some was the cassette as well.

This studio actually had a small am transmitter so we could try to see how our radio mixes worked over a car radio. Of course this was a flawed premise as we didn't have the compression and other processing that radio generally employed. Btw, my early mix also sounded pretty bad through that setup, but of course that was mono and my mix was stereo.

 

I hated cassettes. All of the car cassette decks I had would sound better going one way than the other. Tape azimuth problems were a deal breaker on car cassette decks.

 

You could do this with some good flat speakers. IMO. Why use crap??

 

For me it was beacuse I had an extra pair of crappy speakers.

 

Because most people who buy music (teenagers) have crappy systems.

 

Not to go off point, but I have a pair of Phase Matrix M-6's which I've had and loved for 25 years. Any thoughts on those?

Also, I can see from your profile that you are still in high school. How on earth can anyone so young have so much experience and good knowledge. Keep up the good work Joe.

 

And adults and grandparents and...

 

I just graduated three weeks ago!

I like my Phase Matrix M-2's, they really sound great for thier size. They have a 5 inch woofer, (its actually a Dahlquist mid) and a silk dome tweeter. How big are the M-6's? I have not been able to find any info on the Audio-analyst stuff. I have had my M-2's for about four months now.

 

I hear this story a lot - that mastering engineers like to have a cheap system around just to check how it sounds on that. But if it doesn't sound good on a cheap system, but sounds full, dynamic, extended and open on the studio monitors, would you make a change?

 

Thats where it gets tough. I try to find some sort of balance between the two, so it sounds good on both. However, if it is pop stuff, I will make it sound better on the cheap system. If it is jazz, classical and other such music, that caters more to an audiophile, audience, I keep the sound that I hear on the studio monitors.

 

The M-6's are a 10" three way. I am a huge Dahlquist fan and still run DQ-10's. Funny thing is I also have and like the Advents which also use the DQ-10 woofer.

You wouldn't know where I can get some 13" Dahlquilst woofers reconed would you. Nobody around here can do them.

 

Try Bill Miller at Millersound. He should be able to do them.

Millersound
1422 Taylor Road
Lansdale PA 19446
Phone (215) 412-7700
Fax (215) 412-0542

 

Pardon my tardiness, but I wonder how many major DVD releases are telecined using a 13" Emerson VCR/TV combo unit with the red half burnt out. I suspect not many. That being said, it never hurts to refer (not defer) to a more populist system. I know Bob Ludwig has a Bose setup available at Gateway, I doubt that the Bose ever trump his Egglestons, though.

 

I have spoken with Bob on many occasions, about his mastering techniques. He checks everything on the Bose system. He has told me on many occasions, that he finds himself running back and fourth between his Egglestons and the Bose, to get the right sound.

Sound is different than picture, but thats a whole different topic altogether. TV sets for the most part are plop it on a table, plug in and go. Sound reproduction requires much more in terms of setup, especially placement. The picture on my TV set looks the same no matter where I place it in the room. However my sound reproduction system, does not. I must place the speakers in the proper location for them to sound their best. Unfortunately, most people look at stereos like TV's, plop it down, plug it in and go.