Listening on HP's is much more analytical than on LS; for some reason, the masking effect is not as pronounced on HP's than on LS. I guess it's due to the fact that there is no distraction due to reflections. This affects the discrimination of relative levels. I short, HP's are more tolerant to balance errors.ruffrecords said:
So, as Joaquin already wrote, something that sounds good on LS will almost invariably sound good on HP's, but the contrary is not always true.
The first time I recorded a band with a multi-mic set-up, there were no LS, we all had HP's, with a common feed; everyone, including me, was satisfied with the recording. When we listened through LS, the bass was about 12dB too loud! That was not due to a lack of bass in the HP's, just a basic mistake. Our take on Neanderthal man...
That's why I came to distrust HP's for mixing. I know some have developed that technique, most often borne out of necessity, but this first disappointment made me particularly wary. Some times I had to use HP monitoring for classical recording, but there are not so many mistakes you can do with a basic 2-mic set-up.
Recently a friend of mine set-up a rather nice home-studio, and contrary to my advice, elected to not have a separate control-room; he started using HP's, and quickly found that he had to constantly check what he had recorded on LS. Now, he's moving home and swears he'll have a separate CR in the next.
