[muzician21]

Looking at all this friction over the merits of NS-10 monitors raises
some questions.

It seems to be consensus that there's a need for monitors with
different profiles for mixing purposes. If it's believed that an
"inferior" monitor like an NS10 is useful, what is it that mega-dollar
monitor high end monitors do if you can't simply make a mix using them
and only them to make your mixing decisions?

You're producing for a wide gamut of sound systems that a mix is
likely to be heard on - boom boxes, car systems, hi-fi's all of which
have their own profiles and colorations and likely to be heard in
infinite environments. And I've seen it said in here that there's no
such thing as a truly accurate monitor no matter how much you spend -
so ultimately what target are you shooting for? It seems there must be
some sonic commonality between the mixes of a top-40 country track,
some hip-hop thing and an orchestral CD. How would you define what
that commonality is?

[RD Jones]

On Mar 22, 10:52*pm, muzician21 wrote:
Looking at all this friction over the merits of NS-10 monitors raises
some questions.

It seems to be consensus that there's a need for monitors with
different profiles for mixing purposes. If it's believed that an
"inferior" monitor like an NS10 is useful, what is it that mega-dollar
monitor high end monitors do if you can't simply make a mix using them
and only them to make your mixing decisions?

You're producing for a wide gamut of sound systems that a mix is
likely to be heard on - boom boxes, car systems, hi-fi's all of which
have their own profiles and colorations and likely to be heard in
infinite environments. And I've seen it said in here that there's no
such thing as a truly accurate monitor no matter how much you spend -
so ultimately what target are you shooting for? It seems there must be
some sonic commonality between the mixes of a top-40 country track,
some hip-hop thing and an orchestral CD. How would you define what
that commonality is?

Music is not like lumber.

You could use just about any ruler, tape measure or yard stick
and cut an exact (more or less) 3 foot length of 2x4.
Any type of lumber can be cut using the various "tools" and the
results will be fairly predictable.

Music, on the other hand, lends itself to more genre dedicated
measurements and observations. A system that would be of a type
commonly used for "some hip-hop thing" might be absolute overkill
for orchestral on the low end and woefully inadequate on the highend.

I bet you could do OK for the top 40 country track with the
nastytens. ;-

rd

[Scott Dorsey]

muzician21 wrote:

It seems to be consensus that there's a need for monitors with
different profiles for mixing purposes. If it's believed that an
"inferior" monitor like an NS10 is useful, what is it that mega-dollar
monitor high end monitors do if you can't simply make a mix using them
and only them to make your mixing decisions?

Because most studios don't have mega-dollar high end monitors.

The difference in monitor system quality between a good mastering room and
a typical high-end studio is substantial. A lot of that is just because a
typical studio has a big console and often a bunch of video monitors screwing
the layout up.

Most studios have monitors that are intended to make the clients happy,
whereas mastering rooms have monitors intended to make them unhappy.
--scott


--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[muzician21]

On Mar 23, 12:11*am, "Soundhaspriority" wrote:


Muzician,
* * I don't think there is any commonality in the above uses at all. Still,
there is a motive for monitors.



What I'm getting at is you can generally pop any commercially released
CD of any genre into any boom box, CD player, car stereo and it sounds
okay - speaking sonically, the merits of the music notwithstanding.
Okay, some might say the drums this, the bass that, I don't like the
compression yada yada, but generally it's clean, non-muddy. Certainly
I've heard amateur/vanity releases that have obvious problems but I'm
talking about stuff you find at Boxmart.

The main thing I've noticed is some variation between overall volume
level - may need to bump it up or down a bit but other than that
commercial releases seem to consistently sound sonically decent.

[Danny T]

On Mar 23, 8:46*am, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
muzician21 wrote:

It seems to be consensus that there's a need for monitors with
different profiles for mixing purposes. If it's believed that an
"inferior" monitor like an NS10 is useful, what is it that mega-dollar
monitor high end monitors do if you can't simply make a mix using them
and only them to make your mixing decisions?

Because most studios don't have mega-dollar high end monitors.

The difference in monitor system quality between a good mastering room and
a typical high-end studio is substantial. *A lot of that is just because a
typical studio has a big console and often a bunch of video monitors screwing
the layout up.

Most studios have monitors that are intended to make the clients happy,
whereas mastering rooms have monitors intended to make them unhappy.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. *C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

That is a simply brilliant definition/observation

[Geoff]

muzician21 wrote:
Looking at all this friction over the merits of NS-10 monitors raises
some questions.

It seems to be consensus that there's a need for monitors with
different profiles for mixing purposes. If it's believed that an
"inferior" monitor like an NS10 is useful, what is it that mega-dollar
monitor high end monitors do if you can't simply make a mix using them
and only them to make your mixing decisions?

You're producing for a wide gamut of sound systems that a mix is
likely to be heard on - boom boxes, car systems, hi-fi's all of which
have their own profiles and colorations and likely to be heard in
infinite environments.

mixing or If you are mastering for a broad audience, you need to make
things fit to a degree in all scenarios.

If your target audience is more discriminating, you can assume that what
they hear will be closer to the sound you presumably prefer on your
'better-quality' monitors.

I loath the idea of compromising the 'best' sound to fit on the equipment
people who really don't care about sound quality. That aplies to speaker and
prefered listening media (ie mp3s). Unfortunately that doesn;t pay the bills
very often.

geoff

[Dec [Cluskey]]

On Mar 23, 1:46*pm, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
muzician21 wrote:

It seems to be consensus that there's a need for monitors with
different profiles for mixing purposes. If it's believed that an

Klu

Because most studios don't have mega-dollar high end
monitors.

Not in my experience. I have always seen stunning monitor systems in
profitable studios ...but the preference is the lil' white coned
jobbies and check the mix "in full technicolour" as I always say,
jokingly. "Loud and Proud".


Most studios have monitors that are intended to make the clients
happy,
whereas mastering rooms have monitors intended to make them unhappy.


Again, in my experience, and the advice I give anyone who asks, the
two environments are totally separate.

Monitors in the studio are, or should be, optimised for the
compromised control room/recording room [home studio] environment.
Mastering suite monitors are optimised for a clean, acoustically
perfect room ... two totally different situations. The mastering
suite I use, of choice, is acoustically superb, totally empty save for
the monitors, minimal computer equipment and chairs. As it should
be ... and sadly misunderstood by novices, who accept the invitation
of normal studios, full of clutter, to do their mastering.

Personally, and it is the advice I willingly give, I do not interfere
at all with the mastering engineer ... no instructions, no
comments ... other than to say where the final product will be
used ..... film, TV, CD, download, single release.

They always stun me with the results

Dec [Cluskey]

[Scott Dorsey]

Dec [Cluskey] wrote:
Because most studios don't have mega-dollar high end
monitors.

Not in my experience. I have always seen stunning monitor systems in
profitable studios ...but the preference is the lil' white coned
jobbies and check the mix "in full technicolour" as I always say,
jokingly. "Loud and Proud".


I see stunning-looking monitor systems in profitable studios... but usually
not stunning-sounding ones. Too many of them are huge multi-driver systems
intended to be really loud but with no concept of phase coherency.
Look at the big multi-driver Genelec and KRKs for instance, and notice
how much worse they sound than some of the smaller ones.

And what's with the horns? Back in the seventies there was maybe some
argument in favor of horn monitors, but now booths are smaller and
amps bigger... and folks are mixing with their head halfway inside the
horn of a big TAD. I freaking HATE those things. Stuff like that
is what drove people to nearfields.

I have never, never heard a studio where I could not hear a flutter echo
from the console surface. Why hasn't SOMEONE come up with some kind of
fix better than tossing a blanket over the console?

Most studios have monitors that are intended to make the clients
happy,
whereas mastering rooms have monitors intended to make them unhappy.


Again, in my experience, and the advice I give anyone who asks, the
two environments are totally separate.

Yes, that's the point I am making, but I am not sure that they should
be. Mind you, I work on acoustic music and my goal is to make the
playback sound like the original rather than to make the playback sound
loud on a car radio. So this may affect my philosophy a lot.

I feel much more comfortable mixing on a mastering-style system than on
a typical studio mixing system.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Dec [Cluskey]]

On Mar 23, 4:18*pm, Danny T wrote:
On Mar 23, 8:00*am, "Dec [Cluskey]" wrote:
Regardless of how many people like the NS10 monitors, they are nothing
more then a bad idea that stuck around.

I am not into squashed music, computer programed
performances, auto-tuned terrible singers or gender neutral anything.
I still like my music to have markings that represent things like
retard, pppfff and so on. *I like dynamics that are well balanced and
anything less is a diminishing existence.- Hide quoted text -

Danny

Well written.....

Unfortunately I am in the commercial money making side of the business
where I do not have the luxury of 'liking' or indeed 'enjoying'
music ... so my stuff has to be made to a formula and with the
accepted mixing and mastering that goes with that.

It is also worth considering that the members of my Serious Writers
Guild expect information and instruction from me that will assist
their careers and not hinder them. In other words, they want to know
how to make and present sellable, commercial, successful music. And
that means using all the accepted tools available today to make that
music.

I always regret the fact that I do not 'listen to music for
enjoyment' ... I have long since lost the ability to do that ... my
brain simply analyses and dissects ... I hear each individual part of
the piece and not the overall.

So I do not use NS10s because I like them ... it is because that is
the accepted way of listening to the track I am working on... end of!

I would be failing my members if I recommended any other nearfield
monitor that I personally liked.

Dec [Cluskey]

[Scott Dorsey]

Dec [Cluskey] wrote:

Unfortunately I am in the commercial money making side of the business
where I do not have the luxury of 'liking' or indeed 'enjoying'
music ... so my stuff has to be made to a formula and with the
accepted mixing and mastering that goes with that.

I did this for a few years and I nearly went crazy. I want to say that I
respect this, and it's a difficult job, but it's something I will never,
never do again.

I always regret the fact that I do not 'listen to music for
enjoyment' ... I have long since lost the ability to do that ... my
brain simply analyses and dissects ... I hear each individual part of
the piece and not the overall.

Go and get the Harnoncourt version of Bach's Brandenburg Concerti. Sit
down and listen. It's music that is designed to be analyzed and dissected
and you will enjoy doing it.

I sort of treat pop and rock music the same way I treat classical music
in terms of analysis and procedure.... you may enjoy doing the opposite.
And it may be different enough that you'll have a good time doing it.

So I do not use NS10s because I like them ... it is because that is
the accepted way of listening to the track I am working on... end of!

I would be failing my members if I recommended any other nearfield
monitor that I personally liked.

An excellent synopsis.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Danny T]

On Mar 24, 7:28*am, "Dec [Cluskey]" wrote:
On Mar 23, 4:18*pm, Danny T wrote:

On Mar 23, 8:00*am, "Dec [Cluskey]" wrote:
Regardless of how many people like the NS10 monitors, they are nothing
more then a bad idea that stuck around.

*I am not into squashed music, computer programed

performances, auto-tuned terrible singers or gender neutral anything.
I still like my music to have markings that represent things like
retard, pppfff and so on. *I like dynamics that are well balanced and
anything less is a diminishing existence.- Hide quoted text -

Danny

Well written.....

Unfortunately I am in the commercial money making side of the business
where I do not have the luxury of 'liking' or indeed 'enjoying'
music ... so my stuff has to be made to a formula and with the
accepted mixing and mastering that goes with that.

It is also worth considering that the members of my Serious Writers
Guild expect information and instruction from me that will assist
their careers and not hinder them. *In other words, they want to know
how to make and present sellable, commercial, successful music. *And
that means using all the accepted tools available today to make that
music.

I always regret the fact that I do not 'listen to music for
enjoyment' ... I have long since lost the ability to do that ... my
brain simply analyses and dissects ... I hear each individual part of
the piece and not the overall.

So I do not use NS10s because I like them ... it is because that is
the accepted way of listening to the track I am working on... end of!

I would be failing my members if I recommended any other nearfield
monitor that I personally liked.

Dec [Cluskey]

Dec, I did my first money performance at age 13 in 1976. I've been
making records since 1979 and I've never met anyone that hasn't heard
at least a few of my tracks. I'd say I LOVE music as much as anyone
can love anything. I feel very sorry for you that you don't enjoy
music anymore.

I suppose if I didn't love music I might be tempted to mince it up in
something like a NS10. I suppose there are even people in the world
that would eat a chicken omelet.

[Dec [Cluskey]]

On Mar 24, 3:45*pm, Danny T wrote:
money performance at age 13 in 1976. I've been
even people in the world
that would eat a chicken omelet.- Hide quoted text -

Danny

I'd say I LOVE music as much as anyone

Don't get me wrong here ... I too love music, it is my whole life and
has been for a very long time ... it is the simple joy of listening to
music for listening to music's sake that is my problem ... doesn't
worry me, though.

Hard to explain ....

I envy folk who put on their favourite CD and sit down for a relaxing
listen .... I have not done that since I was 14 years ... Fats Domino,
Elvis, Everleys.

Oh by the way .... Dec, I did my first money performance at age
13

Beat cha! 12 years of age with the Radio Eireann Light Orchestra ....
the first paid show I did was that year in the National boxing stadium
in Dublin to 8,000 audience ... Ed Sullivan at 15 years.

But education came first and ran alongside my musical career. And
that is the advice I give any young guys coming into this business ...
education first.

Dec [Cluskey] [President of the NS10 Appreciation Society .... grin!]

[Danny T]

On Mar 25, 8:42*am, "Dec [Cluskey]" wrote:
On Mar 24, 3:45*pm, Danny T wrote:
money performance at age 13 in 1976. I've been
*even people in the world

that would eat a chicken omelet.- Hide quoted text -

Danny

I'd say I LOVE music as much as anyone

Don't get me wrong here ... I too love music, it is my whole life and
has been for a very long time ... it is the simple joy of listening to
music for listening to music's sake that is my problem ... *doesn't
worry me, though.

Hard to explain ....

I envy folk who put on their favourite CD and sit down for a relaxing
listen .... I have not done that since I was 14 years ... Fats Domino,
Elvis, Everleys.

Oh by the way .... Dec, I did my first money performance at age
13

Beat cha! *12 years of age with the Radio Eireann Light Orchestra ....
the first paid show I did was that year in the National boxing stadium
in Dublin to 8,000 audience ... *Ed Sullivan at 15 years.

But education came first and ran alongside my musical career. *And
that is the advice I give any young guys coming into this business ...
education first.

Dec [Cluskey] *[President of the NS10 Appreciation Society .... grin!]

Maybe I read your intent wrong because it sounded like music was a
pain to you rather then a love. It's been my experience that if you
rely on something to be your bread winner then it becomes a job
rather then a passion. I actually retired mostly about 17 years ago
and went sailing for 5 years. When I came back really wasn't ready to
be retired but I didn't want to rely on music. I started doing captain
work on boats. I found that I did better in music because I wasn't
doing it for anything other then the love of it. Now I work about to
4 months a year as a captain which gives me a lot of pocket cash. I do
music when I feel like it and I really enjoy everything.

As for the speakers - hey - its a taste thing and I don't know why I
hate those things so much and could care less about ever other speaker
that is out there. I really can't tolerate the sound of them but I
really don't care about any other specific speaker out there. I do
think that a bunch of listing references are handy. I check my stuff
on all kinds of things just to see if its going to sound good across
the board.

BTW,I saw some of your early clips. It made me feel a lot better about
myself ;-) I use to perform under alias names because I thought mine
was to hard to pronounce. Later I realized that it was the best idea I
stumbled on because I could change direction and no one would ever
call me on a stereotype. I always think of Gilligan who never did
anything but that one show because he was so typed. That and the first
band I ever had a hit with was a song about smoking pot - that would
have kind of put a plug in the christian stuff I do now!

Anyway, it never matters what someone else thinks unless they are
going to pay the bill. I really despise squashed much and the older I
get the more it bothers me. We'll likely never co produce but more
power to you if you get a money stream from it. I will there is at
least one man in Dallas that has been listing to my rants for a while
and has decided to go un-squashed himself. He has convinced some of
his buddies to do the same and what makes it interesting is that he
produced hiphop. How about that concept. As a matter of fact, he said
he was not going to use auto tune anymore either........ the world is
changing !

[Dec [Cluskey]]

On Mar 25, 4:27*pm, Danny T wrote:
BTW,I saw some of your early clips. It made me feel a lot better about
myself ;-) I use to *perform under alias names because I thought mine


Danny

It's been my experience that if you
rely on something to be your bread winner then it becomes a job
rather then a passion.

Exactly right .... I am one of the lucky ones who consider that they
have never done a day's work in life ... I am astonishingly lucky ...
every aspect of Show Biz is a joy to me. Sing in front of a raving
audience and then get paid for it? Unbelievable .... make a bunch of
tracks, release them and make lots of dosh? And then my Writers
Guild? That, nowadays, gives me the most pleaseure ... helping other
people live the same life as myself.

it never matters what someone else thinks unless they are
going to pay the bill.

Love it ..... [that goes in my list of quotes]

has decided to go un-squashed himself

Like trying to convince a Jew to be a Catholic?

he said
he was not going to use auto tune anymore either

Only used 'Autotune' once in my life .... took an age and the result
was awful ... never used the track.

I have been, however, accused of using autotune on my own stuff many
times ... I am flattered that folk think my tuning is that good. I am
old-school about performance ... I repair [re-record] the sections
that I consider 1) are iffy as regards tuning and 2) are iffy as
regards the ultimate performance.

And I keep repairing until I have the best delivered performance that
is perfectly in tune. However, I am always mindful that a 'clam' can
actually make the performance better ... we had a mighty hit with a
roaring clam three quarters way through ... but Dick Rowe [the
infamous Decca boss] overuled my decision to re-record that part.

He was right ... and nowadays I point out the clam to folk when the
track is played ... I once helped Dick try to repair a dodgy edit ...
he finished up with a 3 3/4 beat bar on a Lonnie Donegan track for
release in the USA. Dick did not have a musical note in his body and,
obviously, the sound engineer who editted did not. It was impossible
to fix ... the track was released and was a monster hit! So who was
right? I suppose musos and producers listening to that track would
wonder at our genius in getting the orchestra to play a 3 3/4 beat
bar?

Lady Gaga's 'Poker Face', similarly, has a bar like that ... just a
dodgy edit ... but it sounds great.

What a wonderful business we are in .... I often wonder do plumbers
talk about their pipework like this? [grin!]

Dec [Cluskey]

[Powell]

"muzician21" wrote

Looking at all this friction over the merits of NS-10 monitors
raises some questions.

It seems to be consensus that there's a need for monitors
with different profiles for mixing purposes.

So an accurate "monitor" plays what kind of music then?


If it's believed that an "inferior" monitor like an
NS10 is useful, what is it that mega-dollar monitor
high end monitors do if you can't simply make a
mix using them and only them to make your mixing
decisions?

"NS10 is useful"... USEnet folklore. I doubt they
would have any useful function as bird houses.


You're producing for a wide gamut of sound systems
that a mix is likely to be heard on - boom boxes, car
systems, hi-fi's all of which have their own profiles
and colorations and likely to be heard in infinite
environments.

Well, yes and no. Today, you're more likely to record and
edit in high definition 96/24. You will then degrade the
product for some type of medium the customer requires
like CD and/or TV and/or radio and/or video and/or MP3.

If your ears are the final arbitrator you cannot substitute
a NS10 for any of them. You will physically have to get
into a car/truck or plug in your MP3 player or TV set to
hear what you have created. Those articulations create
the most effective audio product. Having said that, most
audio engineers just push product out the door (J*O*B).


And I've seen it said in here that there's no such thing
as a truly accurate monitor no matter how much you
spend - so ultimately what target are you shooting for?

("truly accurate monitor"... okay so the best or only
really-really- really good. A truly accurate monitor
will have a frequency response of 20 to 20,000 as a
minimum spec. That's very hard to come by in a
single speaker. And besides being pricey they require
editing rooms the size of two-car garages. Because
of weight they cannot be moved for field uses. The
B&W800D, for example weighs in at 275 pounds or
a Wilson Maxx at 840 pounds.

"what target are you shooting for"... what commercial
markets are you serving? Your expected income
budget will help you determine what's a practical
speaker purchase. Otherwise you're just polishing a
hobbyhorse.


It seems there must be some sonic commonality
between the mixes of a top-40 country track, some
hip-hop thing and an orchestral CD. How would
you define what that commonality is?

I suspect that the top music studios in the country
produced the greatest number of hits. The type of
music is not relevant per se. You might even see
the NS10 there. Studios that rent-out their facilities
try to accommodate the lowest common denominators
(Broke-A$$®), after all.

[Geoff]

Dec [Cluskey] wrote:
On Mar 25, 4:27 pm, Danny T wrote:
BTW,I saw some of your early clips. It made me feel a lot better
about myself ;-) I use to perform under alias names because I
thought mine


Danny

It's been my experience that if you
rely on something to be your bread winner then it becomes a job
rather then a passion.

Exactly right .... I am one of the lucky ones who consider that they
have never done a day's work in life ...

Sounds like the troup of Irish painters that were doing my mum's house....


geoff