Why test your mix on multiple playback devices...

[Scott Jackson]

It is often recommended that you should listen to your mix on various different systems to make sure you have "a good mix that translates well on every system".

 

Why test your mix on multiple playback devices when you already know that it will sound different on every device, speaker and environment no matter how you mix your song?

 

Why not just balance your mix to one single playback system that you are familiar with and trust?

 

[Edit] Typos

Edited December 7, 2012 by Scott Jackson

[camillo jr]

I don't think the issue is that a mix will sound different on different systems, it's how different it sounds. If the mix sounds relatively good on several different systems, then you know you're in the ballpark. But if it's only sounding great on the mains but kind of crappy on the boombox or the car stereo, then you know you've still got some work to do.

 

The mastering guy I go to has six sets of speakers to work with. He generally uses a couple of those but he can flip from things that cost multiple $k to a cheap pair of stereo speakers and this gives him more info on which to base his decisions.

 

I have a boombox that has a hump around 300 - 400 Hz and a bit of a nasty top end. That thing is very useful for confirming that I'm heading in the right direction.

 

The thing is, how do you know you can trust your main monitors? Your clients? They will miss stuff because they'll be focused on tiny little details about their performance. Or is it all the Soundcloud hits your getting? I'm not being entirely rhetorical here, I'm actually curious what real world criteria would you use to say "this mix is done"?

[Scott Jackson]

Thanks for the reply camillo jr.

 

I'm actually curious what real world criteria would you use to say "this mix is done"?

 

That is exactly what I am getting at. That is the tough nut to crack. But my point is still that a mix is always going to sound different from hi-fi to headphones to earbuds to car stereos to....

 

I spent many years as a commercial photographer. Shooting for fashion catalogues was the worst. They always were very concerned (actually insistent) that the colors of the clothing was "accurate" so that when a customer sees the product in the catalogue, they see the same color in the store on the rack and when they get it home and look in the mirror...Needless to say this is an impossible task because even if my original transparency matched the color of the outfit when it was on my set under my lights it would not look the same under a blue sky, fluorescent lights, incandescent lights and don't forget each persons own perception of color not to mention the printing process of the catalogue and the fact that everyone is seeing the catalogue and the garment under different lighting conditions.

[camillo jr]

Thanks for the reply camillo jr.

 

I'm actually curious what real world criteria would you use to say "this mix is done"?

 

That is exactly what I am getting at. That is the tough nut to crack. But my point is still that a mix is always going to sound different from hi-fi to headphones to earbuds to car stereos to....

 

Well, if you want to stick with one system, then I guess you'd be doing a LOT of listening to reference material, maybe looking at it with EQ analyzers and comparing to your own mixes. My point is, there's gotta be something that provides additional perspective outside our little audio world.

 

I spent many years as a commercial photographer. Shooting for fashion catalogues was the worst. They always were very concerned (actually insistent) that the colors of the clothing was "accurate" so that when a customer sees the product in the catalogue, they see the same color in the store on the rack and when they get it home and look in the mirror...Needless to say this is an impossible task because even if my original transparency matched the color of the outfit when it was on my set under my lights it would not look the same under a blue sky, fluorescent lights, incandescent lights and don't forget each persons own perception of color not to mention the printing process of the catalogue and the fact that everyone is seeing the catalogue and the garment under different lighting conditions.

 

I think this is a good analogy to the mixing process inasmuch as you need to establish a baseline for what you're sending out into the world...... The thing about images is that when someone is looking at them under different lighting conditions, their eye adapts so that they still perceive the colours as working well, relative to all the other colours in the image and relative to the room they're in. If you haven't established that balance in the first place, the colours might look skewed towards one part of the spectrum or another. And like music, photo editing requires a good monitor that's properly calibrated. In a way though, I think it's actually easier in the visual editing world to get closer to a standard output from a monitor, compared to audio monitors. Even at that, I know that savvy image editors will check their work in hard copy to really see what they're getting and sometimes demand a proof from the printer to make sure they're on the right track.

 

In the audio world, the equivalent to that is to simply listen to a mix on another system. If you do indeed have a monitor that you can trust, then that will make your work easier. Yes, the mixes will sound different on other systems but if the balance between frequencies is good, then it will still translate to these other "lighting conditions".

 

Sometimes (when the luxury of a decent budget permits this) I'll take my mixes to a mastering guy and just have a listening session. He'll tell me what areas need to be improved on the EQ front and so I get really valuable, independent feedback on my mixes, a different sonic perspective and then I can go back to my studio and do a bit of additional tweaking.

[Scott Jackson]

Well, if you want to stick with one system, then I guess you'd be doing a LOT of listening to reference material, maybe looking at it with EQ analyzers and comparing to your own mixes.

 

That's just it. I've been listening to a fairly extensive music collection on an old Sony ES system with a pair of Thiel speakers for over 22 years. My theory is that if I'm happy with my mix on that system that I am so familiar with, the mix should be translated fine (or as good as any other commercial material) on any other device.

 

The thing about images is that when someone is looking at them under different lighting conditions, their eye adapts so that they still perceive the colours as working well, relative to all the other colours in the image and relative to the room they're in.

 

Same happens with music/hearing perception. It's all in the brain.

 

And like music, photo editing requires a good monitor that's properly calibrated.

 

Oh, but I was talking about analog photography. Remember film? Very hard to get consistent results at the lab because of all of the variables and of course each batch of film was different and needed testing before you could give your clients somewhat consistent results. Even harder for it to be matched by the printer that prints the catalog. But this is still a problem (or more appropriately a fact) with current digital methods. Though digital photography is a different medium compared to analog photography it has similar obstacles.

[Scott Jackson]

I'm interested in hearing more opinions and thoughts on this subject if anyone else would like to comment.

[Scott Jackson]

[shivermetimbers]

Bottom line: Translation.

 

That is it. No need to think any deeper on this subject.

 

If all music were forever to be played on an ipod, then it would be easy to do all mixes on little white earbuds.

 

If all your mixes translate well using your trusty speakers, then you apparently have a pretty good room to mix in. Unfortunately, this is not the case with most people.

[Matt Mayfield]

They say argument by analogy is not argument. I agree, so I only claim this as an assertion by analogy:

 

Mixing is like building a sculpture inside a room you can't enter, using remote control robots.

 

Your monitors are like one window into the sculpture-building room, and your faders & effects & stuff are the things that control the sculptor robots. Other people's speakers are their own windows, in different positions on different walls, looking into that same room.

 

If you're hoping to make a good sculpture, you'll want to make it nicely 3D. That means that different aspects of it will be apparent from different angles.

 

How do you hope to make a good 3D sculpture (mix) if you only observe your work from one angle (pair of monitors)?

 

You can be confident that it looks right from that angle, and in your imagination you probably have some idea of what it should look like to someone looking into the room from a different window, but while standing at your window, you can't directly SEE from their viewpoint.

 

Flaws hidden behind other objects will inevitably sneak past your attention if you only watch what you're doing through one window. The only hope to catch them is to observe from many different perspectives.

[Scott Jackson]

Hey Shiver, thanks for the reply!

 

Bottom line: Translation.

 

That is it. No need to think any deeper on this subject.

 

I get the translation aspect, in fact, that is why I started this thread. I'm not over thinking the subject. I am just curious why it is recommended by so many people that you should listen to your mix on every available device.

 

If all music were forever to be played on an ipod, then it would be easy to do all mixes on little white earbuds.

 

Exactly! Which leads me to another question regarding this topic.

 

When you send your mix to a mastering engineer, are they mastering the mix to suit a particular device? Are they checking the master on multiple devices? Or are they just using there own familiar and trusted speakers/devices.

 

If all your mixes translate well using your trusty speakers, then you apparently have a pretty good room to mix in. Unfortunately, this is not the case with most people.

 

I do have a pretty good room to mix in and I know what you are saying because before I had a proper room I thought my mixes sounded good when played back in my improper room......until I heard them in my new studio and had to remix each project. And of course, the new mixes translation to my familiar Sony system improved.

 

But what I am saying is this. If your mix sounds good to you in your studio and then it translates well to your daily and most familiar playback device then what is the point of listening to the mix on every other possible device when we know it is not going to sound the same from system to system, room to room, and so on?

[Scott Jackson]

They say argument by analogy is not argument. I agree, so I only claim this as an assertion by analogy:

 

Mixing is like building a sculpture inside a room you can't enter, using remote control robots.

 

Your monitors are like one window into the sculpture-building room, and your faders & effects & stuff are the things that control the sculptor robots. Other people's speakers are their own windows, in different positions on different walls, looking into that same room.

 

If you're hoping to make a good sculpture, you'll want to make it nicely 3D. That means that different aspects of it will be apparent from different angles.

 

How do you hope to make a good 3D sculpture (mix) if you only observe your work from one angle (pair of monitors)?

 

You can be confident that it looks right from that angle, and in your imagination you probably have some idea of what it should look like to someone looking into the room from a different window, but while standing at your window, you can't directly SEE from their viewpoint.

 

Flaws hidden behind other objects will inevitably sneak past your attention if you only watch what you're doing through one window. The only hope to catch them is to observe from many different perspectives.

 

First, thanks for the reply Matt and the analogy. It is thought provoking. But I'm going to have to reference my own analogy posted above. If I judge my color photograph under a light that is perfectly balanced to "daylight" color temperature (about 5500 kelvin) and under ideal brightness then it will look one way under 5500 kelvin color temperature and under warmer and cooler and brighter and dimmer lights the photograph is going to look different. You simply cannot satisfy all possible viewing environments.

 

I just don't see how audio is any different in that way.

 

So, wouldn't it be best just to find a constant and judge all of your mixes under this one constant?

[ski]

If I judge my color photograph under a light that is perfectly balanced to "daylight" color temperature (about 5500 kelvin) and under ideal brightness then it will look one way under 5500 kelvin color temperature and under warmer and cooler and brighter and dimmer lights the photograph is going to look different. You simply cannot satisfy all possible viewing environments.

 

I just don't see how audio is any different in that way.

 

So, wouldn't it be best just to find a constant and judge all of your mixes under this one constant?

 

I'm imagining that you're in a room that has only one light socket in it, and you want to use this room to view your photographs. You go out and shop for a 5500º K lightbulb at the lightbulb store and there are 10 to choose from, each by a different manufacturer. Each of those manufacturing facilities uses the same brand of calibration equipment to tweak the color temperature of these bulbs. So it probably stands to reason that you could randomly select any one of those bulbs, pop it into the socket, and expect to see light of the expected color.

 

Light is directional (even if it's diffuse) so when your randomly-chosen bulb illuminates your photos, you're going to see what you expect to see.

 

With audio, however, there is no such analogy. Substituting speakers for lightbulbs, and sound for light...

 

No two speaker manufacturers share the same criteria for producing devices to generate sound. Even if they used the same calibration equipment to plot frequency response graphs in an anechoic chamber, one manufacturer's bent on sound might be to make it a bit more hyped in the high end, while another finds it desirable sonically to bump the mids. Whether a speaker sounds good to the manufacturer and the consumer alike is matter of taste more than anything else.

 

And when sound diffuses it has a tendency to come back at you. So unlike light diffusing in a room, sound waves at different frequencies diffusing in a room can set up both reinforcing and canceling nodes, thus coloring the sound at the listening position.

 

Hope that helps.

[ski]

More...

 

In professional studios, engineers typically have multiple pairs of speakers set up. They primarily mix on one pair, and then bounce back and forth between them and another pair (or more) to gain perspective on how the sound translates.

 

Back in the day, we used to also reference on what we lovingly referred to as a "horror tone", a single (thus mono) Auratone speaker with a 3" or 4" speaker in it. And a further test of how well the mix was balanced was to play it out of the crappy, even smaller speaker out of the 2-track deck (also mono).

 

The best test, IMO, is to play a mix in your car. It's a great way to judge how well the bass and low end is mixed in a track.

[shivermetimbers]

... When you send your mix to a mastering engineer, are they mastering the mix to suit a particular device? Are they checking the master on multiple devices? Or are they just using there own familiar and trusted speakers/devices.

 

Totally different ball game as far as formats that you are mixing for. However the room is set up with speakers that can produce things you won't hear on common low budget monitors. Most importantly are the trained ears and experience that belong to the M.E.

 

 

 

----------------------

... But what I am saying is this. If your mix sounds good to you in your studio and then it translates well to your daily and most familiar playback device then what is the point of listening to the mix on every other possible device when we know it is not going to sound the same from system to system, room to room, and so on?

 

 

Once the room is set up properly and it is proven that the mixes translate well, no need to check the mix on every system (provided you know how to mix properly.) In other words, just because it sounds good and translates well doesn't mean you can add some deep bass and expect it to sound good every where else. There will still be limits that confine you. So if in doubt, check it out on similar systems that it may end up being played back on (including Mono.).

 

 

 

 

[shivermetimbers]

...The best test, IMO, is to play a mix in your car. It's a great way to judge how well the bass and low end is mixed in a track.

 

Based (no pun) on that idea, I once tried to mix in the car. Problem was that every car has a different system. More importantly, the car wasn't moving down the highway at 60m.p.h. Also, some forum members want to buy 8" speakers and then get scolded that they have a small room and need 5" speakers. How can you mix in the Low end if the speakers cannot reproduce what you are trying to add in?

 

So unless you are trained to know what frequencies you are mixing in and know the system well enough, you are safer to check things out on many different generic set ups as you can. I like the VRM box even though it is not a substitute for a mxing/mastering studio.

[Scott Jackson]

The best test, IMO, is to play a mix in your car. It's a great way to judge how well the bass and low end is mixed in a track.

 

Why?

[Scott Jackson]

So unless you are trained to know what frequencies you are mixing in and know the system well enough, you are safer to check things out on many different generic set ups as you can.

 

Not sure what you mean by "unless you are trained to know what frequencies you are mixing in and know the system well enough".

 

Do you mean by listening experience or by numbers?

 

I don't concern myself with numbers when I mix.

 

I just use my ears.

[ski]

The best test, IMO, is to play a mix in your car. It's a great way to judge how well the bass and low end is mixed in a track.

 

Why?

 

I'll answer your question with a question...

 

Have you ever heard a song play over a car radio to which your reaction was, "man, the bass is really loud on this record" or, "the vocal on this track is really buried"? I'm going to assume that the answer is more than likely "no". And if it's "yes" then it's only on very rare occasion that you felt that way.

 

Of course, any song you hear on the radio is likely to have been professionally mastered, and then the radio station is going to compress and bandwidth-limit the audio before its broadcast. But for the most part, when you play a song on your car's radio, it's going to sound "normal". And that's the premise behind "proving" your mixes in the car: most music, if properly balanced (not even so much mastered as balanced) is going to sound "normal" in the car.

 

Soooo.......

 

Let's say that your studio room's acoustics are such that it sucks low frequencies out of your mix. You may not be aware of this, and ultimately you're going to adjust the level of the kick, bass, and other low frequency elements based on what you hear in that room. So OK...

 

You have a track to which you do some rudimentary mastering, and overall the mix is sounding fairly polished and controlled. If you play that mix in your car and the bass sounds overwhelmingly boomy compared to commercially released tracks, that's a sure sign that your room acoustics are sucking bass. Again, you wouldn't know it from mixing in your studio, but the car stereo is going to reveal that kind of very basic flaw.

 

The opposite can hold true as well. You may find that your mix sounds bass-light in the car, and that's a sign that at the listening position in your studio you're hearing low frequencies reinforcing, giving you a false sense of balance when you mix.

 

But you don't even have to attempt mastering your tracks to "prove" them in the car. And I'd venture to say you shouldn't. If your mix sounds balanced in the car prior to mastering, that's a very good sign!

 

[edited for clarity]

[Rev. Juda Sleaze]

I've definitely found car stereos to be the crucible of mixing. They often have crazy EQ stuff going on, it can be very easy to distort heavy bass.

 

Laptop speakers and tiny speakers in general are another consideration; they're too small to produce the fundamental of bass notes, so you sometimes need to give the harmonics a boost for the bass to come through.

 

Once you know a system inside-out, checking lots of others isn't such an issue, because you can guess with reasonable accuracy. Though there's no harm in checking if people are paying you for it and your reputation relies on good mix translation.

 

But my question would be: why wouldn't you want to listen to your mixes on as many different set-ups as you can? It's all part of the joy and obsession for me.

[Scott Jackson]

First of all Ski, thanks for your replies.

 

Have you ever heard a song play over a car radio to which your reaction was, "man, the bass is really loud on this record" or, "the vocal on this track is really buried"? I'm going to assume that the answer is more than likely "no". And if it's "yes" then it's only on very rare occasion that you felt that way.

 

In my neighborhood the bass is really loud on every song played on every car stereo in every car that drives by (or parks on the block for hours) playing music. So loud that you hear the car parts rattling and the artwork on my walls vibrate.

 

Of course, any song you hear on the radio is likely to have been professionally mastered, and then the radio station is going to compress and bandwidth-limit the audio before its broadcast. But for the most part, when you play a song on your car's radio, it's going to sound "normal". And that's the premise behind "proving" your mixes in the car: most music, if properly balanced (not even so much mastered as balanced) is going to sound "normal" in the car.

 

I have my music professionally mastered. But of course that is irrelevant since we're talking about judging the mix before mastering.

 

It's interesting that you are saying "But for the most part, when you play a song on your car's radio, it's going to sound "normal"." And this exactly why I started this thread. For you it sounds like your favored proving ground is your car stereo.

 

 

Let's say that your studio room's acoustics are such that it sucks low frequencies out of your mix. You may not be aware of this, and ultimately you're going to adjust the level of the kick, bass, and other low frequency elements based on what you hear in that room.

 

I'm fortunate enough to have an acoustically treated studio.

 

You have a track to which you do some rudimentary mastering, and overall the mix is sounding fairly polished and controlled. If you play that mix in your car and the bass sounds overwhelmingly boomy compared to commercially released tracks, that's a sure sign that your room acoustics are sucking bass. Again, you wouldn't know it from mixing in your studio, but the car stereo is going to reveal that kind of very basic flaw.

 

The opposite can hold true as well. You may find that your mix sounds bass-light in the car, and that's a sign that at the listening position in your studio you're hearing low frequencies reinforcing, giving you a false sense of balance when you mix.

 

You see, this is what I'm talking about and curious about. I can come to the same conclusion on my Sony system by comparing my mix to other commercial mixes played on that same system. Because I am familiar with it. It sounds like you do the same thing except that your car stereo system is the one you prefer and are familiar with.

 

But you don't even have to attempt mastering your tracks to "prove" them in the car. And I'd venture to say you shouldn't. If your mix sounds balanced in the car prior to mastering, that's a very good sign!

 

I do not and would not attempt mastering to "prove" my tracks. I leave the mastering to the ME.

 

If your mix sounds balanced in the car prior to mastering, that's a very good sign!

 

Again, for you the car is obviously your preferred proving ground. I don't see how a car stereo can be such the definitive proving ground since every car can and usually does (unless if factory) have very different systems.

 

 

 

 

 

 

All that said, I do listen to my mixes on several systems/speakers. In the studio I mix by my monitors and also check the mix with headphones when I think I'm getting close to finished. I also listen to the mix on a crappy pair of cheap monitors in a completely different room which has the worst acoustics as well as listen to the mix on a different set of headphones on that system. I do this only because I am curious to know how the mix will sound on various playback devices but not to judge the mix. To judge the mix I use my studio monitors first, then I listen on my Sony system, then back to the studio if something sounds unbalanced then a final check on the Sony system.

Edited December 14, 2012 by Scott Jackson

[Scott Jackson]

Once the room is set up properly and it is proven that the mixes translate well, no need to check the mix on every system (provided you know how to mix properly.)

 

Exactly!

 

So I guess the recommendation to listen to your mixes on multiple devices is based on an assumption that most people are mixing there music with less than adequate monitors and/or in a room with poor acoustics.

[Scott Jackson]

But my question would be: why wouldn't you want to listen to your mixes on as many different set-ups as you can? It's all part of the joy and obsession for me.

 

All that said, I do listen to my mixes on several systems/speakers. In the studio I mix by my monitors and also check the mix with headphones when I think I'm getting close to finished. I also listen to the mix on a crappy pair of cheap monitors in a completely different room which has the worst acoustics as well as listen to the mix on a different set of headphones on that system. I do this only because I am curious to know how the mix will sound on various playback devices but not to judge the mix. To judge the mix I use my studio monitors first, then I listen on my Sony system, then back to the studio if something sounds unbalanced then a final check on the Sony system.

[ski]

All that said, I do listen to my mixes on several systems/speakers. In the studio I mix by my monitors and also check the mix with headphones when I think I'm getting close to finished. I also listen to the mix on a crappy pair of cheap monitors in a completely different room which has the worst acoustics as well as listen to the mix on a different set of headphones on that system. I do this only because I am curious to know how the mix will sound on various playback devices but not to judge the mix. To judge the mix I use my studio monitors first, then I listen on my Sony system, then back to the studio if something sounds unbalanced then a final check on the Sony system.

 

There it is! You've provided the answer (and the methodology) for the question you asked in the first place

[shivermetimbers]

There it is! You've provided the answer (and the methodology) for the question you asked in the first place

 

Hot Diggity Dog!

 

Now that the matter is settled, let's watch an old Woody Woodpecker cartoon, shall we?

 

[Scott Jackson]

Now that the matter is settled, let's watch an old Woody Woodpecker cartoon, shall we?

 

Speaking of Woody Woodpecker, you made me remember my youth when on Saturday mornings we used to hang out and watch that cartoon.

 

Saturday Morning Woody

 

[buzwah]

More...

The best test, IMO, is to play a mix in your car. It's a great way to judge how well the bass and low end is mixed in a track.

 

I used to use that method to check my mixes until the last CD went into my 4 stacker in dash CD player in the car and then refused to come out. now it's been over a year and it won't budge. God knows how much that little mistake will cost me when I try to get a mechanic to pull apart my dashboard and retrieve the disc.

I've read that burnable CDs are slightly thinner than massed produced CDs so that must be the problem. Until then I suppose I'll just have to listen to the radio

[marcel72]

Why not just balance your mix to one single playback system that you are familiar with and trust?

If you actually trust the system, in that it has consistently allowed you to produce mixes that translated well, this is fine.

 

That said, I have done many of my 'best' mixes while working on 2 systems concurrently. 1 (Dynaudio BM-6As) to get sounds, colour, depth, and overall balance, about 95% of the work. The other (Yamaha NS-10s on a Bryston 4B) to get the right level for bass and lead vocal, about 5%. I find that as I get closer and closer to the 'right' balance, the differences between various playback systems seem to disappear, anyway.

 

But that's just me.

 

Best, Marcel