REALITY CHECK #3: Your Monitors Suck

ATTENTION: Read these first:
- REALITY CHECK series Introduction
- REALITY CHECK #1: You Suck
- REALITY CHECK #2: Your Room Sucks
----------------------------------------------

Let's face it, your monitors probably suck, and sucky monitors can keep you from making broadcast quality recordings. But I wish upgrading to an expensive pair of monitors would elevate you to recordist extraordinaire. Unfortunately, the problem is bigger than that. I should have titled this post "Your Monitoring Situation Sucks" because there are several things to consider when addressing the monitoring issue.

You Get What You Pay For
I don't think I've ever met an owner of an inexpensive compact car who complains that their vehicle can't compete with a Ferrari on the race track. So why do we complain when we can't get our mixes to sound right with our 4" entry-level monitors? In Mixerman's book Zen and the Art of Mixing he recommends that people pay $1,500+ for a pair of 6"-8" nearfields. Out of your budget? Yup. So, how can you compete? Your $300 monitors sound...well...like $300 monitors. They're probably misrepresenting the audio coming out of them. And if you're making bass-heavy music, they aren't capable of reproducing that 30-50Hz low end that you crave. If you can't hear it, how are you supposed to carry out mix decisions confidently? Both major roadblocks to achieving broadcast quality recordings.

Your Room Is As Important as Your Monitors
If your room sucks, you're still gonna have issues working with even the best pair of monitors. Your monitors are only as good as your room, so the room must sound great before a quality monitor can start helping you. See REALITY CHECK #2: Your Room Sucks.

Knowing Your Monitors Is Essential
In Zen and the Art of Mixing Mixerman says, "All you need to understand is how your monitors respond in your room and how that translates outside of your room" (p. 167). Now, he's not advocating mixing with junk monitors, but this is where people with mid-level monitors can actually make decent recordings. If you can "learn" your monitors and your room, you can actually work around some of the deficits of both. It can be a pain in the butt, but it is possible. However, the major roadblock to attaining this level of knowledge and understanding is...well...YOU. Remember my first post: "You Suck"? Many of us self-taught home recordists don't know what it means to learn a pair of monitors. Even if we did, it can take years to finally achieve this ninja ability. And let's say you win the lottery today and the first thing you buy is a pair of Gold-Mach 500 Pro-Mixer Series 8" diamond studded monitors. There still is a learning curve that needs to be addressed. If you can't, you're screwed.

Multiple References Are Needed
Let's take a peak at a pro studio for a moment. They have at least 3 pairs of quality monitoring options: "bigs," midfields, and nearfields. (I'm not gonna explain what each of those are because I really think you should read the section on monitoring from Mixerman's Zen and the Art of Mixing.) For a home studio this is overkill, but my point is that one reference is usually not enough. A second pair of monitors will offer another perspective on your mix, which will increase the chances of that mix translating on a variety of playback systems outside the studio. Mixerman talks about switching between top quality 6"-8" nearfields and 10"-15" midfields to reach a compromise on certain mix decisions. Many of us have two sets of monitors, but switching between a $300 pair of 5" CoolBrands and a $50 pair of computer speakers won't provide the same results. It can be done, but it's gonna take a lot more work.

In summary, bad monitors, bad room, inexperience/inability, and no secondary reference monitors all combine to make a quadruple whammy in our ability to crank out broadcast quality recordings. The good news is that it's not impossible...just really annoying.

So, what can you do? If you haven't already figured it out, this series is about either coming to terms with your situation and celebrating where you're at, or taking baby steps toward improving your situation. I recommend doing both. The advice for improving your monitoring situation isn't unlike the advice I gave for dealing with a bad room. Check your mixes on as many references as you can. When your mix "translates" well on a boombox, over earbuds, in your car, and in the living room, you've probably got it dialed in. If not, make adjustments until you do.

The best thing you can do is "learn" how your monitors sound in your room. Import a bunch of your favorite CD-quality files into your DAW and have a listening party from the mix position. Just observe. Listen to all the frequency ranges to see how they react. Is the low end boomy or does it disappear? Is the high end shrill or does it sound like it's being rolled off? Take notes. Play a wide variety of genres. If you do this enough, you should be able to recognize what sticks out in your track that shouldn't.

Another great technique for learning your room/monitors is to keep a few broadcast quality reference songs in your session while you're mixing. If you're unsure just how much midrange to boost, for example, flip over to the genre-similar track and see what it's doing. Ignore loudness (if you can) and focus on balance and blend. Ask specific questions about your mix and find specific answers from the reference mixes. Tweak your mix until it has similar characteristics to the pro mix. Just remember that the pro mix you're comparing with has been mastered. Try to discern what mastering has done and ignore those aspects of the pro mix. Then try to anticipate how mastering will change your mix and pretend it has those characteristics. Good luck with that! :-)

I haven't mentioned proper placement of the monitors in your room, the equilateral triangle of listening bliss, decoupling the monitors from your desk, avoiding desk reflections, working with subs, or anything like that. There's lots of info on the interwebs about the proper care and feeding of monitors. Do the research. Every minor adjustment that improves your monitoring will payback in the mix arena. A fun place to start is Overdub
vol. 1: A Guide to Studio Monitors put out by M-Audio.

Finally, if anyone has experience with the room analysis kits like the KRK Ergo or IK Multimedia ARC, please leave a comment. Love? Hate? Indifferent? What's the verdict?

And as always, enjoy the ride!


REALITY CHECK #4: Your Gear Sucks

Follow Create Music Productions on Twitter for daily tips and links on songwriting, recording, music production:@CreateMusicPro

REALITY CHECK #2: Your Room Sucks

(ATTENTION: This post may seem a little out of context if you haven't already read the REALITY CHECK series Introduction or the first entry, REALITY CHECK #1: You Suck. I recommend reading both before continuing.)

Your room sucks, but I'm sure you've already raised your fists in the air over this frustrating realization. If you're recording with mics, or playing back through speakers (duh), your room puts its sonic imprint on everything you do. If your room doesn't sound good, it's gonna be really hard to make radio-quality recordings.

Your room sucks for two reasons: 1) Space, and 2) Acoustics.

1) Space.
Have you ever been to a real recording studio? The big ones have multiple tracking rooms with matching control rooms, both of which have been designed by acousticians or at least people who know their stuff. The goal of a great tracking room is to sound amazing while offering maximum flexibility in the kind of imprint you want to add to whatever sound source you're capturing. They usually have an open, somewhat reflective "live" room for tracking performances, with portable absorption options (gobos, baffling, acoustic treatment) to help control just how live it sounds. This room is usually flanked by several isolation booths or rooms designed to capture much drier performances and to offer...well...isolation from whatever's going down in the live room.

Your room is probably 10' x 12' (if you're lucky), was designed by an architect for humans to sleep in, offers little or no options as to how dry or wet you want it to sound, and sucks acoustically. Maybe you've slapped up some Auralex foam, have a packing blanket or two, and perhaps even an isolation box. Big whoop. My point is that your room probably sounds bad and gives you zero options as to the kind or amount of room tone you'd like to capture. I bet you can produce a few radio-quality recordings from your room if it sounds halfway decent, but your hands are tied if you need a different sound than what your room is capable of producing.

2) Acoustics.
If you're an electronica or MIDI composer, you probably don't care too much about my first point. But if you're playing back your songs through speakers into a room, then no one is immune to this fact: a room "colors" your sound for good or for evil. If you're playing back into an evil room, how are you supposed to produce radio-quality sounds?

Back to the pro studio for a moment. A sweet control room has been designed or treated by an expert to offer a fairly neutral playback environment. This means that when a song comes out of the speakers, the sounds aren't bouncing around the room in an adverse way. Poor, untreated spaces cause all sorts of frequency dips and peaks at the listening position. This makes the receiver think they're hearing something they're not. If your room misrepresents the audio coming out of the monitors, you're going to have a heck of a time trying to mix a radio-quality track, especially when it comes to getting the low end you desire.

Your room is probably too small, too evenly shaped, and probably has no proper sound absorption. Haphazardly throwing up foam, "egg crates," or -gasp- carpeting the entire space will NOT transform your room into a listening paradise. Think about all the money, thought, and expertise that goes into a major-label control room. Frankly, you just don't have the time, cash, expertise, or space necessary to create an ideal listening environment.

So, what is the outcome of the sucky room double whammy?:

With a crappy tracking and playback environment, it's going to be really difficult to capture, process, and mix radio-quality audio.

Notice I didn't say impossible. Most of us will discover workarounds for our room limitations...really annoying workarounds. With the advent of fairly decent portable recording devices, it's theoretically possible to capture any sound source in any environment. (In fact, @RonanCMurphy just spoke on this subject at the HRBC Recording Fest, 2011.) And, actually, you can improve a bad playback environment somewhat with a little knowledge and some cash. Resources like the monthly "Studio S.O.S" series in Sound on Sound magazine can help you get a grasp on some of the most common issues and how to address them. There are tons of book-type reference materials on studio acoustics. I'm excited about @BobbyOwsinski's newly released Studio Builder's Handbook. The bummer is that no amount of DIY knowledge is going to trump expert knowledge. It's not uncommon for the Sound on Sound team to pull out old acoustic treatment because it was doing more harm than good.

For those of us who cannot afford a roam overhaul, the most common workaround for a bad tracking environment is to...well...make the best of a bad situation. Realistically, though, accepting that a bad tracking room could keep you from contending with radio tracks may be the only "solution" until you can change/improve your room situation.

The poor man's workaround for a bad playback environment is to check mixes on multiple systems: iPods, computer speakers, car systems, home entertainment systems, boom boxes, etc. Make notes on your impressions from each environment and then go back and try to implement the needed changes into your mix. Repeat until you have a decent mix. The problem is that by Mix #11 you're ready to set fire to your studio. Can you imagine being in a room that you could trust? Well, that's the advantage that the hit makers have over you.

If you're frustrated about working in a crappy room, you have one of four options: 1) Violent takeover a major label studio, 2) Expensive overhaul of your existing space, 3) Quit recording forever, or 4) Accept that the less-than-stellar room you're working in is a contributing factor to you not being able to produce radio-quality music.

Choosing 4) is not as bad as you think. You're probably doing a decent job of recording/mixing despite a bad room situation. Yes, the drums you captured in a 10' x 10' carpeted space are gonna sound lifeless compared to the sweet ambiance of a professional live room. No, adding reverb will never compare the authentic vibe of a great-sounding natural space. Yes, getting an accurate image of your low end is going to be darn near impossible in a walk-in-closet. But option 1) is illegal, option 2) is expensive, and option 3) is stupid. My advice: choose 4), deal with it, and enjoy the ride!

REALITY CHECK #3: Your Monitors Suck

Follow Create Music Productions on Twitter for daily tips and links to all things recording, songwriting, and music production: @CreateMusicPro