(This is a portion of an article written by Rip Rowan the Editor of "Pro Rec" mag. In this article, "Balderdash" (Aug '99), he sets out to put down common dogmas about what is good & bad in studio recording. For example, "you've got to record at 96Hz to get professional quality", "you've got to have tube equipment to get a good sound", "analog was always better", "compression is always bad", "compression is always good", etc., etc

(All the points are actually quite encouraging for us as "Home Studio" folks. In one particular portion, he addresses the common theory that you "have to have perfect acoustics or monitors to get a world-class mix". While it's perhaps more of a challenge to get the best mix in boomy rooms or on lower quality systems, he states that it's more of a question of learning how properly-mixed music sounds in your studio. Here's the excerpt:)

"You can't do a mix on a system like that."

Huh? Good thing nobody told George Martin that. Turns out that a lot of people get really worked up about their monitoring rooms and systems. I will agree that the flatter your room and system response is, the more likely you are to get the mix right.

"Really, Sherlock, you figured that out all by yourself?"

However, room response is never flat. Ever. Ultimately, the only way to get a good mix is not to achieve the perfect room - in fact for most people, mixing in a perfectly flat anechoic room would be very difficult, because it would be so unusual. The only way to get a good mix is to know the room you're in.

That's why lots of people can get good mixes on NS10s. That's why experienced engineers will keep their 20-year old, tired monitors instead of upgrading to the new, flatter, lower-distortion models. Not because the older speakers are the best technology, but because they're the most familiar. Ultimately, mixing is about subjective frames of reference, not about objective standards of measurement.

For that reason I like to spend time in my control room - reading, working on nonmusical stuff, whatever - with a CD playing on the monitors. Monitors I've used since 1990. Subliminally I am developing and honing my frame of reference. If my room has a problem with bass buildup at 70 Hz, for example, then my brain will, over time, start anticipating and compensating. The room may not be flat - maybe not even close - but my brain will compensate, to a degree.

[End of excerpt]

[Comment from John L:]

This is why I think one of the best things any of us can do, no matter what our studios sound like, is to reference to well-done music.

I mentioned doing an A/B comparison between a system reference song & the song I'm mixing or mastering. When I'm mastering, for example, I listen to the reference music on JBL speakers then listen to our song & make some EQ adjustments. Then I listen to the music on NS-10M's, then our music on the NS-10M's & make other adjustments. Then I do the same on smaller cassette deck speakers. Next, I do the A/B comparison in my headphones & maybe make more EQ changes. Finally, I'll go back to the JBL's again & see how it's doing. (Actually besides these four tests, I also turn on the Loudness button while on the JBL's, NS-10M's, & headphones for three more comparisons.)

I've always figured that my sound system is not perfect, and besides, a mix sounds different on every set of speakers. Each one brings out different colors & potential frequency problems. But regardless of the speakers, it would make sense that whatever audio traits an excellent mix has on those speakers, then hopefully our music should have the same traits on those speakers. [End of File]