Music prod V. Post prod monitoring - does a chasm exsist?

[postprosound]

I was reading on the C.A.S. forum about a particular brand of monitor being geared for music, and not post. This started me thinking, and I wanted to open this up to a ‘round table’ discussion, are there differences in what makes a good ‘music’ monitor versus ‘post’ monitors? What about the acoustics of the studios themselves? Could a good sounding music-mixing studio be a good dub stage? I am curious, as I hope others might be, as to others opinions on this. And just to take it a step further, what are we looking for when it comes to monitors and a studio? Is this something that manufactures are addressing?
Thoughts? Opinions? Favorites? Secrets?

[soundworx]

Very good question, I'd like to know as well...

Personally I think you can get away with any quality monitor in "TV"-post, Theater-post I don't know. Probably all comes down to how well you know your monitors and how what you hear translates to the actual screening/broadcast.

Room acoustics are important, but I think with music it is more critical than doing post.

[merlin79]

Certainly a chasm does exist.
I have found that most music folk do not believe in the center channel.
They also do not believe in bass management.
Since most center channel speakers in the end user environment are smaller and potentially less robust than the L/R the center channel is often not used as it is perceived as and may be incapable of reproducing full range content.
Then there is the X curve......


As to the monitor question: that's a bunch of bunk.

What is the goal of a monitor speaker?
To accurately reproduce the content that is sent to it.

As such a single speaker that is properly designed is capable of reproducing all types of material.

The problem comes when manufacturers produce speakers that have a response curve that is not transparent or crossovers that have severe phase alignment tricks/issues to make them work. If one favors a monitor with a specific "color" or distortion characteristics to it then one's material will sound different on other gear and that is perceived as either bad or good based on any number subjective thoughts by those in attendance.

Unfortunately the world is filled with gear that is not linear in frequency and phase response along with widely varying distortion characteristics and thus the line between bad and good or good and bad is an ambiguous cloud at best.

Then you throw in the room to the equation/argument.....
And after that the system alignment argument..
Then the issues of what the consumers are listening on....

It would be a wonderful thread to start a well if everybody did the same...etc etc etc, but they don't. Should we arrive at some sort of convention? Yes. Chances of that happening: hmmm well let's think now.

So really the question is: Do you have monitors that work well for you and translate well to the speakers that the rest of the world uses/hears things from?

As to whether manufacturers are addressing this: Yup...just depends how much you want to spend and how accurate you want your end results to be.

Brian

[CLee]

As to the monitor question: that's a bunch of bunk.

What is the goal of a monitor speaker?
To accurately reproduce the content that is sent to it.

There are 2 monitors that are very well regarded by posters here that I just can not listen to. Does that make them bad. No. It just means I don't like them. It's all about what works for you, be it post or music.

Why ARE there so many brands of beer out there? Tastes vary...

[networker]

A couple of things...

First of all I, as a post production kind of scum hates bass management and I stay away from it as much as is possible and practical. (Can't always...)

Secondly I have to say that the poster who said that you can (I paraphrase) pretty much use any quality monitor for tv may not be aware of the X-curve and other related subjects. You must use monitoring that can handle the specs. Just a cautionary note there.
I would also say that room acoustics are every bit as important for post as for music. Every bit.

Just so there is no confusion, for feature film work, I would be sure that I was using speaker systems that were designed for use behind a perforated film screen.....Oh yeah, the screen too...maybe that is a little obvious but there may be some people here who weren't thinking about issues of mixing theaters as opposed to the common near or mid field environments that are common today.

If someone has to mix a feature using a smaller near field room, be aware that they will get into issues where the levels and spectral balances could be incorrect. In a case like that, I would print master in a mixing theater and I would want my predubs as well as stems so that I could correct for the inevitable issues that will arise. OT? sorry...

[merlin79]

I am curious:
What constitutes a speaker that is designed to work behind a perforated film screen as opposed to one that is not?

Given that you are comparing different models of speakers which are suite to the given room size you are working in.

Just so there is no confusion, for feature film work, I would be sure that I was using speaker systems that were designed for use behind a perforated film screen.....Oh yeah, the screen too...maybe that is a little obvious but there may be some people here who weren't thinking about issues of mixing theaters as opposed to the common near or mid field environments that are common today.

[Rick Sanchez]

My personal preference is to mix with a system that as closely resembles the environment where the end user is going to hear it. If it's for a theatrical release, it's very difficult to achieve a good mix without working in a properly set up theatre style dub stage. Yes, it can be done, but why kill yourself second guessing how it will translate.

Home theatre generally uses bass management, so I will always check on a bass managed system for anything going to DVD or broadcast surround.

In the old days of mixing music, I would do a separate radio mix for the single to really make it pop over the car radio and a more "full range" mix for the album, which was usually played on a stereo system.

Always consider the end user and keep in mind that you have a range of $2.00 earbuds for people watching DVDs on a flight to $100,000. audiophile home theatre systems to deal with.

[CD Productions]

I'm curious, What does the "X-Curve" have to do with TV mixes? And what are these speakers that are "designed" to go behind a perf screen?
I think we all want monitors that will help whatever room we are in, translate well to the final use. Many different theaters use different speakers, and have different acoustics, so it will always be an approximation. TV is a total crap-shoot. You don't know how it will be played back. You want monitors that aren't going to fool you into dipping frequencies you shouldn't, and will allow you to hear enough detail to make intelligent decisions about what you are doing. The room plays as much into the sound as the speakers, so they have to work together. Does that sound like a similar purpose for music monitors?

[postprosound]

So. Good points here... You see so many threads on this and other forums that are “Mackie versus Event” or “how is this monitor?” If a person knew what they wanted in then end, what works, or what it is they are trying to accomplish, they could make well-informed decisions. This goes for room acoustics as well. I was hoping that we could shed a little light on the matter, so that we all can be better educated, and be able to make our own choices with confidence.

So what I am gathering is that there is as much personal taste and getting to know your monitors in post as there is in music mixing. That there is no ‘best’ or holy grail when it comes to monitors. That you should think of your target audience when choosing your monitors, and that flat is king. And that the "x curve" will rear its ugly head.

So if we all had to re-buy our monitors, we would look for something that is reasonably flat. Is tough enough to put up with day-to-day grind of our jobs, and something that we can listen to for extended periods. And perhaps most importantly, is something that we like. Does anyone else have a ‘standard’ that studio monitors should measure up to?

As a side note, people mixing for film will generally choose ‘cinema p.a.’ type monitors. But what else seems to work for media bound for theater?

As far as room acoustics go, what should the room sound like? Once again, a lot of questions arise as to how. (And don’t forget the ubiquitous ‘treat your room’ responses that come up in every thread.) What should we shoot for? A flat room? A live room? Dead?

Thanks for your responses thus far. Let’s keep them going!!!!

[BRH]

They are indeed different speaker monitors, how big is your room and how much money do you have?

I don't think brand has anything to do with it.

http://www.jblpro.com/installations/...recording.html

http://www.jblpro.com/installations/...ls_cinema.html

http://www.thx.com/products/professional/index.html?f=c