Headphones for Mixing and Mastering

[kags]

For those who haven't used it, Goodhertz Canopener is intended to provide a similar soundstage and presentation of speakers on headphones. The idea is to tune the plugin's parameters until your headphones present similarly to your speakers in your room. That gives you a "trustworthy" way to mix on headphones when you can't or don't want to mix on your speakers. I spend a few hours over a few days tuning Canopener so that the mixes I was working on felt very similar when switching between speakers and my 'phones. I find it very helpful to hear a better sense of L/R panning and I can better perceive the volume of center-panned instruments when mixing on headphones. As Svyet mentioned, it's good to bypass is now and then for a "real-world" headphone check, but I'm never surprised when I bypass the plugin. It just helps me get a mix settled easier.

 

[svyet]

For those who haven't used it, Goodhertz Canopener is intended to provide a similar soundstage and presentation of speakers on headphones. The idea is to tune the plugin's parameters until your headphones present similarly to your speakers in your room. That gives you a "trustworthy" way to mix on headphones when you can't or don't want to mix on your speakers. I spend a few hours over a few days tuning Canopener so that the mixes I was working on felt very similar when switching between speakers and my 'phones. I find it very helpful to hear a better sense of L/R panning and I can better perceive the volume of center-panned instruments when mixing on headphones. As Svyet mentioned, it's good to bypass is now and then for a "real-world" headphone check, but I'm never surprised when I bypass the plugin. It just helps me get a mix settled easier.

That's a good point on tuning to your speakers for easy switching, I'll have to play with that a little when I set up my monitors. In my case, I just keep CanOpener in the default "mix engineer" mode (a conservative 100% crossfeed and 60-degree speaker angle) for an "ideal" listening environment that I do not have. I also use mono a lot for quick mix checks. It's actually quite a lot like a monitor controller. There are lots of features that I haven't bothered with, but I'm sure a lot of people would appreciate.

It is different when bypassing CanOpener, but like you I'm also never surprised. It's just a different presentation. It might sound a little scooped to some people when it's on, but to me it just sounds more natural and more out in front as opposed to more direct and inside of my head.

 

[AlgoRhythms]

Headphones, even more than monitor speakers, are highly personal. What I like and work with ( Grado ps2000e and Sennhauser HP600) may not be a good choice for you. Getting a recommendation is helpful in creating a short list, but should always be taken with a degree of skepticism. One really has to listen for themselves and decide.

Its really important to remember that ALL headphones lie. Some blatantly and others seductively. But you will never hear the truth. So it's important to understand HOW your phones are lying to you. Once you learn to listen past the literal presentation, and mentally adjust for the lies, a good set of phones can be a very powerful tool in both mixing and
mastering, especially setting EQs and compressors, listening for shades tonal balance and microdynamics.

Also, don't underestimate the importance of a good headphone amp to fully realize a headphone's potential. My personal choice is the Ferum OOR and Hypsos PS.

YMMV.

 

[johnsonic]

Wrote in earlier asking about the Slate VSX. Wound up getting a pair and am finding them indispensable. The binaural processing is really good, being able to check the mix in many different rooms & speaker combos & headphones really does result in more translatable mixes - for me anyway. Use the mixcube in slate's room for general balance, Archon mids for general mixing, and switch through the other rooms / cars / boombox / headphones to see if anything sounds weird on a bunch of them.

What @kags and @svyet said about panning being presented as on speakers (100% L is not just in your left ear) helps a bunch. And you still can bypass to hear it presented as on headphones.

I was a total skeptic but am now a believer.

 

[terry setter]

The Slate VSX headphones are the only piece of gear that I think I might want to add to my mixing/mastering system. I'm hapy with everything else. Translation to other playback systems is the key to successful mastering. I know my playback systems well, but I'd like another set of benchmark playback alternatives.

 

[abbey road d enfer]

Until the 80's, there was almost no debate about what medium was mastering targetting. The typical repro system was pretty much consistent amongst the listeners who actually cared about sound quality.
A stereo with decent speakers installed with some sense of geometry.
Then came the Walkman, which in itself could have justified a specific mastering, but it didn't happen.
Today, there is no typical repro system, from good ole stereo to kids sharing a set of earbuds, to a random scattering of smart speakers.
No doubt there is a possibility to select a reference master which, in combination with an adequate matrix, would provide the best result possible with a particular system.
The big question is how this reference master should be produced/monitored, and how people are motivated spending the extra money to afford the necessary matrixer.
Since I listen to music via a conventional 2.0 system, I vote for producing/mastering with a similar system, but it's only because its an acquired taste.
Kids that are born with earbuds would vote differently.
I've never been impressed with listening to music via a 5.1 system, particularly when teh source was mastered from a basic stereo source...

 

[AlgoRhythms]

You make a valid point: there is no common reference point for today's end listener. So many options: Streaming, downloads, Cd's, etc, and vinyl.

As a mastering engineer, I don't chase that moving target. First, I strive for the highest quality sound on the highest quality reference system available, which happens to be the monitor system in my studio. I find that quality trickles down to lower quality systems, where working with something mid-fi never sounds better on a high end system.

Then I make sure the digital files are optimized for the streaming services they will appear on. Often there will be multiple sets of files, depending on where they will be used. If it's unknown what services are going to be used, I use Apple Music standard as that's pretty universal (but not always 100% optimal).

I also check the files with a really cheap bluetooth speaker for problems that might only be revealed with mid/lo fi setup.

And then I send hem out for client approval.

Vinyl is a different procedure altogether, as an optimal digital master usually isn't optimal for vinyl.

 

[kags]

Regarding listening systems and what makes a monitor system useful in mastering - or even mixing or producing, the main thing is have a system where you understand the musical balances. Nobody every said "I love that song and groove, but I really wish there was a bit less 3k on the lead vocal." People react to the emotional content, meaning, groove, or whatever of a song and only some audience members are critically listening for audio quality. Sure, we want our work to be appreciated by the most critical listener, but never at the expense of the meaning of the song. There is a pretty wide target for what sounds "good" to most listeners and what really matters is that we master or mix on a system that is well-balanced and accurate enough that we don't miss any areas that have problems. Almost all of my mastering clients are listening to see if I can make the song more "fun" or "powerful" or "pump" or sizzle. Occasionally someone is listening for a bass resonance or cymbal harshness that they couldn't solve in the mix.

I rarely use "compromised" playback systems to check a mix or master, except to make sure the main elements can be heard. The same goes or mono-compatibility. If you're listening in mono, chances are the quality is not a major concern. Lo-fi systems are lo-fi no matter what we do.

I love high-fidelity and resolution, but I love a great song and performance way more.

 

[abbey road d enfer]

Nobody every said "I love that song and groove, but I really wish there was a bit less 3k on the lead vocal."

True, but I often heard people saying "the vocal is too loud or not enough", "there is too much echo", and this perception is very much dependant on what system the listener uses. Headphones are notoriously more tolerant of balance errors. OTOH they are more exact in assessing sound quality.

I rarely use "compromised" playback systems to check a mix or master, except to make sure the main elements can be heard. The same goes or mono-compatibility.

If the EMI engineers who made the "stereo" Beatles mix had done this basic check, they would not have missed the fact that the solo or vocals are missing if you listen to one channel only, which unfortunately stil happens quite often (restaurants/stores)

If you're listening in mono, chances are the quality is not a major concern.

I have a few examples of people who actually care about quality, but are ill-informed. They buy a single Phantom I (Enceinte Phantom I - Devialet) because the salesman told them it's good for a start, and later buy a second one, but have no sense of where to put them.

I love high-fidelity and resolution, but I love a great song and performance way more.

+1

 

[kags]

True, but I often heard people saying "the vocal is too loud or not enough", "there is too much echo", and this perception is very much dependant on what system the listener uses. Headphones are notoriously more tolerant of balance errors. OTOH they are more exact in assessing sound quality.

As Abbey says -"I often heard people saying "the vocal is too loud or not enough", "there is too much echo" Those comments are to be considered, but are all personal taste. I think Adele is about 6 dB too loud on "Hello," but it didn't stop 20 million people from buying the record. I always pay attention when anybody comments on the audibility of lyrics or a vocal, but other comments are considered on a case-by-case basis.

Headphones and speakers have a personality, even when tuned for a balanced/flat frequency response, so people should choose the personality that feels right to them.

If the EMI engineers who made the "stereo" Beatles mix had done this basic check, they would not have missed the fact that the solo or vocals are missing if you listen to one channel only, which unfortunately stil happens quite often (restaurants/stores)

Your EMI point is well taken and at the time people didn't know what to do with stereo. It is a creative decision when mixing stereo or immersive as to how much panning is appropriate. I often think of what happens in a car when something is hard-panned, but I mostly worry about the vast majority of listeners. Today the vast majority of pop music listeners use Apple earbuds or Airpods. I just wrote an article about that and our research shows that Apple has just about 16% of the global headphone market, with the next 17 models only making up a combined 1%. This is not by listener's sonic preference, but because of the availability and ubiquity of Apple products. The question becomes should we mix for Apple products or a general "flat" playback system?

I heard a great story of the Eagles 5.1 mix sessions and Don Henley freaked out when he realized that the center speaker contained only his dry vocals. The mixer didn't consider how the artist might feel about that, but probably never made that mistake again.

I have a few examples of people who actually care about quality, but are ill-informed. They buy a single Phantom I (Enceinte Phantom I - Devialet) because the salesman told them it's good for a start, and later buy a second one, but have no sense of where to put them.

Those speakers look awesome! I can't see dropping $6k on a pair of wireless speakers. The salesman probably says they will sound amazing everywhere and from any listening position - science!

 

[terry setter]

If the EMI engineers who made the "stereo" Beatles mix had done this basic check, they would not have missed the fact that the solo or vocals are missing if you listen to one channel only, which unfortunately stil happens quite often (restaurants/stores)

Of course, we must remember that the board used for the early Beatles stereo mixes had no panning at all. It had a three-position switch on each channel, "Left", "Right", and "Center". If you were going to have stereo, some things had to be entirely on one or the other side of the mix. Pan pots came along pretty quickly after that, but more slowly in England, I am told.

 

[abbey road d enfer]

Those speakers look awesome!

Indeed they are.

I can't see dropping $6k on a pair of wireless speakers.

They are speakers before being wireless.
The technology and quality of manufacturing are ultimate. In terms of performance, they easily match B&W 702"s, KEF LS60 or Dynaudio Focus 60 for domestic, or Adam S3, Focal Trio 6 or Genelec 8341 for studio monitoring. However, the unusual form factor tends to deterr studio users.

 

[Whoops]

The question becomes should we mix for Apple products or a general "flat" playback system?

I'm really a proponent that nowadays you should use both.
And also add to that a Bluetooth Speaker of one of the Best selling models of JBL, Bose, Sony or Sonos.

80% of people that I see listening to music at home use a small bluetooth speaker of some sort, almost no one (general population) uses an Hi-Fi system nowadays.

By the way "Flat playback systems" don't exist, thats a myth that only serves for marketing . The same could be said about Flat sounding rooms

 

[kags]

Agreed - I use the term flat only as a description for accuracy- not equal power at all freq or per octave and certainly with some dips and bumps. I tune dozens of rooms a year, from bedrooms to renowned facilities and I see it all!

I agree that mixes need to be tested all around. That said, very successful songs thave been mixed on only headphones or Bluetooth speakers, not to mention NS10s, mixcubes, etc…. A great song and production will work out ok on many systems.

I enjoy great-sounding studio monitors and headphones and feel confident about my work when it sounds great on honest playback systems. I also spend a lot of my life tuning rooms so that even modest monitors are trustworthy to a point and can be used to create music that translates well.

I would love to find a word to replace “flat” to universally describe an accurate playback system.

 

[abbey road d enfer]

I'm really a proponent that nowadays you should use both.

But ending up with only one mix/master? Which one? The one that sounds good on headphones or the one that sound good on speakers?
IMO issuing only one mix/master for both makes as little sense as using the same master for both AND vinyl.

And also add to that a Bluetooth Speaker of one of the Best selling models of JBL, Bose, Sony or Sonos.

Of course it's impossible to mix/master for any stupid installation of BT speakers.

80% of people that I see listening to music at home use a small bluetooth speaker of some sort, almost no one (general population) uses an Hi-Fi system nowadays.

So 80% of people would be better off with a mono mix...

By the way "Flat playback systems" don't exist, thats a myth that only serves for marketing .

Of course, but the typical scooped sound with over-inflated bass is dominant. Should we mix for those?

 

[Gold]

I use one set of speakers and make my judgement on those. I only use headphones for checking low level noises and fades. I don’t believe in optimizing mixes for specific formats. Besides the intellectual arguments there is the practical argument of what happens when the intern at the label puts up the bluetooth version at the audiophile site and the audiophile version on bandcamp? It’s a giant mess. That’s what it is.

 

[kags]

I use one set of speakers and make my judgement on those. I only use headphones for checking low level noises and fades. I don’t believe in optimizing mixes for specific formats. Besides the intellectual arguments there is the practical argument of what happens when the intern at the label puts up the bluetooth version at the audiophile site and the audiophile version on bandcamp? It’s a giant mess. That’s what it is.

I also rely on one pair of studio monitors -or- one pair of headphones and I stick to one reference for the entire mix or mastering project. Since Covid lockdowns I have gone back and forth between can and speakers and my clients have been happy in all cases. For Atmos mixes speakers are really a necessity or the mix will never translate to speakers.

If you find the pair of monitors that you relate to and tune your room l, one ref is enough to ensure reliable translation.

Taste and musicality overcome mist monitor deficiencies.

 

[MrBlomski]

I use Sennheiser HD25.
Anyone else?

 

[abbey road d enfer]

I use one set of speakers and make my judgement on those. I only use headphones for checking low level noises and fades.

So do I, too.

I don’t believe in optimizing mixes for specific formats.

Then do you agree that listening on earbuds is a "degraded mode" ?

 

[abbey road d enfer]

I use Sennheiser HD25.
Anyone else?

Mixing on headphones has proved to be disastrous for me. The increased perception acuteness results, for me, in accepting terrible balance choices, and the much increased apparent spatial separation leads me to produce mixes that lack openness.