dr_stupid
Active member
Why shouldn't I?
-I have some computer speakers that I know are crap.
-I have some relatively cheap stereo speakers that are probably not very good. I have no way to really know for sure, as I do not have the knowledge, ability, or equipment to plot fancy shmancy graphs of their frequency response curves.
-I have some Sony MDR-7506 headphones that I at least know have a reputation for reproducing very accurate sound.
-My "editing suite" is a one bedroom apartment in a city with window air conditioners and a bunch of other God-forbidden noise polution. I am not moving. I am not building a sound studio in my bedroom.
-I have no money. I have negative money, i.e. extreme debt. I am not buying a $1000 pair of speakers. I am not buying a $100 pair of speakers. I am not buying anything else for a very very long time, except MAYBE some food...
What would you do in my situation?
I recently read Jay Rose's book, and don't follow his logic in the section on monitoring. The arguments seemed to go like this:
1) Don't monitor with bad speakers, even if you know your audience will hear the mix on bad speakers. You will not be hearing accurate sound on your bad speakers, and will make decisions based on that inaccurate information. Your decisions may be totally wrong. At best, the results of your decisions will be unpredictable on other people's bad speakers.
2) Don't monitor with headphones. Headphones are "too accurate." You will make decisions based on this very accurate information that may not be valid on bad speakers.
Seriously, am I crazy, or does this line of reasoning completely contradict itself? Don't make your decisions based on innaccurate information. Don't make your decisions based on very accurate information. Don't use speakers of similar quality to your audience's speakers. Don't use headphones, because they are more accurate than your audience's speakers.
Also, the conclusion seems to be: Monitor with very very very very good quality uber-expensive loudspeakers. These will give you highly accurate information, but apparently they won't be "too accurate" like headphones. What you hear may still have nothing to do with what your audience will hear on their bad speakers. But it will be "predictable" in some special way that decisions based on good headphones would not be predictable. AND, above all, you will really be able to feel like one kick-ass audio pro with your sweet gear! You might even be able to lift your nose at all those noobs editing on their crappy-ass crappos...
Just kidding.
But really, I am very confused.... Any wisdom would be much appreciated!
Thanks!
-I have some computer speakers that I know are crap.
-I have some relatively cheap stereo speakers that are probably not very good. I have no way to really know for sure, as I do not have the knowledge, ability, or equipment to plot fancy shmancy graphs of their frequency response curves.
-I have some Sony MDR-7506 headphones that I at least know have a reputation for reproducing very accurate sound.
-My "editing suite" is a one bedroom apartment in a city with window air conditioners and a bunch of other God-forbidden noise polution. I am not moving. I am not building a sound studio in my bedroom.
-I have no money. I have negative money, i.e. extreme debt. I am not buying a $1000 pair of speakers. I am not buying a $100 pair of speakers. I am not buying anything else for a very very long time, except MAYBE some food...
What would you do in my situation?
I recently read Jay Rose's book, and don't follow his logic in the section on monitoring. The arguments seemed to go like this:
1) Don't monitor with bad speakers, even if you know your audience will hear the mix on bad speakers. You will not be hearing accurate sound on your bad speakers, and will make decisions based on that inaccurate information. Your decisions may be totally wrong. At best, the results of your decisions will be unpredictable on other people's bad speakers.
2) Don't monitor with headphones. Headphones are "too accurate." You will make decisions based on this very accurate information that may not be valid on bad speakers.
Seriously, am I crazy, or does this line of reasoning completely contradict itself? Don't make your decisions based on innaccurate information. Don't make your decisions based on very accurate information. Don't use speakers of similar quality to your audience's speakers. Don't use headphones, because they are more accurate than your audience's speakers.
Also, the conclusion seems to be: Monitor with very very very very good quality uber-expensive loudspeakers. These will give you highly accurate information, but apparently they won't be "too accurate" like headphones. What you hear may still have nothing to do with what your audience will hear on their bad speakers. But it will be "predictable" in some special way that decisions based on good headphones would not be predictable. AND, above all, you will really be able to feel like one kick-ass audio pro with your sweet gear! You might even be able to lift your nose at all those noobs editing on their crappy-ass crappos...
But really, I am very confused.... Any wisdom would be much appreciated!
Thanks!