mix translation -- tips and techniques?

I write music for short films and amateur video games. I use high end software to create the music, but I mix on fairly low end equipment. This is because I like to mix in the environment that others are most likely to hear it (e.g. if the piece is for a flash game, it will most likely be heard on computer speakers). However, this poses a problem when I want to use these cues in demos or in any other environment. I've looked into it and haven't been able to find a whole lot of good material on mix translation. Are there specific techniques used to make a mix sound good on different systems? I've had a lot of trouble with this in the past and would appreciate any help that can be provided.

Thank you in advance!

Are there specific techniques used to make a mix sound good on different systems?

Yes, I think there is one undeniably good technique - mix in the best monitoring environment you can afford.  This means really good monitors in a properly treated room.

I can't speak for others here, but my experience over the years has been that a mix made under ideal conditions will translate a lot better than anything else. 

A co-worker of mine has little 1/2-inch speakers built into her monitor, which could sound worse than they do, but are not particularly lovely.  Just heard part of a current mix project over them the other day, and nothing is lost by having mixed on detailed studio monitors.  The sound on the cheapies is fine for what it is, but on good equipment it sounds good too. 

Apart from avoiding obviously impossible scenarios (like getting bass out of those tiny speakers), I have nothing to add -- I agree wholeheartedly with Graeme.  Test your mix on many different speakers, but don't mix on junk, which is a recipe for disaster.

I don't mix on junk, per-se, they're actually the best I can afford. I don't have the money to go for anything big...how do I know what a good monitoring environment is?

I don't mix on junk

... but I mix on fairly low end equipment. This is because I like to mix in the environment that others are most likely to hear it (e.g. if the piece is for a flash game, it will most likely be heard on computer speakers).

These two statements seem to be totally at odds with each other?   Perhaps a rundown of what you are actually using might help here.

This question (or something very similar to it) pops up with incredible regularity on another forum I belong to.  I think the easiest thing I can do is quote a reply from a well-respected mastering engineer;

"Nothing will ever, EVER approach the sheer magnitude of the importance of your monitoring chain and the room they're in.

.......I'd submit your monitoring chain isn't up to snuff. Or the room. The two are dependent on each other. You will only ever hear as well as your monitors allow you to hear (period). Your monitors will only ever be as accurate and consistent as the room they're in allows them to be (period).

No piece of gear, no plugin, no power cable, no microphone, nothing can or ever will compete with the importance of that chain. Pretty much every professional studio in the world was built around the monitoring chain. There's a good reason for that.

......get the best monitors you can find (go used - more bang for the buck) and maybe 8 4" 2'x4' broadband traps. It'll do so much more than anything else ever could...
_________________
John Scrip - MASSIVE Mastering"

The point John is trying to get across is that the real problem stems from the fact that, unless the monitoring is up to par, you can't hear what is really happening in the mix.  Approaching the problem from the standpoint of 'this is going to be listened to on an MP3 player, computer speakers, etc.', and then proceeding to mix within a similar situation is totally the wrong way to go about things. If you produce a good mix, it will automatically translate to other systems.

Music Conductor says "test your mix on many different speakers" - and that is advice that is often given.  I rarely have cause to disagree with him, but bear in mind that professional studios don't do this sort of thing - they simply don't have the time or resources to faff around in this way.  They have a set of main monitors, a set of nearfields and (possibly) a really crappy box - that's it!  Most of the time, mixing will be done on the mains, with a quick reference to the others.  Professional engineers know that if it sounds OK on the mains, it's almost certainly going to sound passably good on anything else it might be played on.

I am sitting in front of a GP computer to do my emails, listen to things over the 'net and stuff like that (my audio work is on another machine) so you might be forgiven for thinking I am running a Soundblaster into a set of computer 'monitor' speakers - but you'd be totally wrong as I have a LynxOne card into a Quad 303, driving a pair of Rogers LS2's. My point being that I really don't think it's up to you to try and pre-judge what your target market might be using.  You should aim dfor the best mix possible and let the end-user worry about how it sounds to them.

I don't mix on junk

... but I mix on fairly low end equipment. This is because I like to mix in the environment that others are most likely to hear it (e.g. if the piece is for a flash game, it will most likely be heard on computer speakers).

These two statements seem to be totally at odds with each other?   Perhaps a rundown of what you are actually using might help here.

This question (or something very similar to it) pops up with incredible regularity on another forum I belong to.  I think the easiest thing I can do is quote a reply from a well-respected mastering engineer;

"Nothing will ever, EVER approach the sheer magnitude of the importance of your monitoring chain and the room they're in.

.......I'd submit your monitoring chain isn't up to snuff. Or the room. The two are dependent on each other. You will only ever hear as well as your monitors allow you to hear (period). Your monitors will only ever be as accurate and consistent as the room they're in allows them to be (period).

No piece of gear, no plugin, no power cable, no microphone, nothing can or ever will compete with the importance of that chain. Pretty much every professional studio in the world was built around the monitoring chain. There's a good reason for that.

......get the best monitors you can find (go used - more bang for the buck) and maybe 8 4" 2'x4' broadband traps. It'll do so much more than anything else ever could...
_________________
John Scrip - MASSIVE Mastering"

The point John is trying to get across is that the real problem stems from the fact that, unless the monitoring is up to par, you can't hear what is really happening in the mix.  Approaching the problem from the standpoint of 'this is going to be listened to on an MP3 player, computer speakers, etc.', and then proceeding to mix within a similar situation is totally the wrong way to go about things. If you produce a good mix, it will automatically translate to other systems.

Music Conductor says "test your mix on many different speakers" - and that is advice that is often given.  I rarely have cause to disagree with him, but bear in mind that professional studios don't do this sort of thing - they simply don't have the time or resources to faff around in this way.  They have a set of main monitors, a set of nearfields and (possibly) a really crappy box - that's it!  Most of the time, mixing will be done on the mains, with a quick reference to the others.  Professional engineers know that if it sounds OK on the mains, it's almost certainly going to sound passably good on anything else it might be played on.

I am sitting in front of a GP computer to do my emails, listen to things over the 'net and stuff like that (my audio work is on another machine) so you might be forgiven for thinking I am running a Soundblaster into a set of computer 'monitor' speakers - but you'd be totally wrong as I have a LynxOne card into a Quad 303, driving a pair of Rogers LS2's. My point being that I really don't think it's up to you to try and pre-judge what your target market might be using.  You should aim for the best mix possible and let the end-user worry about how it sounds to them.

So what would you suggest I do? Disregarding the fact that my mixing room is probably not acoustically the best, what equipment would be the best to mix on? What's a low-cost option? And what are these "mains" of which you speak? I'm software savvy but hardware hard-headed.

Try to get hold of copies of Sound on Sound mag or look on their website. They have monthly articles on treating home studios to sound better and loads of equipment reviews from inexpensive up to down right exotic.

You could spend anything from a few hundred dollars up to tens of thousands. You should be able to get something decent for $300 - 400 plus a bit of DIY on the room.

Having said that, is it reasonably possible to get a decent mix without all that?

Having said that, is it reasonably possible to get a decent mix without all that?

The answer is generally 'no'.

If it was that simple to get even a vauguely workable result, why do you think that people would go to all that trouble?

Having said that, is it reasonably possible to get a decent mix without all that?

Have you understood anything that has been said here?

Monitoring is the most important thing you can invest in.  Poor software/hardware - even, plain lousy engineering - can all be reduced to a minimum when you can actually hear where it's all going wrong.  Otherwise you are really trying to paint a picture in the dark, without being able to see either the canvas or the palette.

Thank you for the help! I'll definitely look into getting some new software once I hook a few new jobs. (Business has been slow lately.  )

Thank you for the help! I'll definitely look into getting some new software once I hook a few new jobs. (Business has been slow lately.  )

You still don't get it, do you?  Have you actually read the replies above?

It's not software you should be looking at, but hardware - in the form of loudspeakers, amplifiers and room treatment.

Whoops...I meant hardware...I was half-asleep when I typed that. I'll shut up now.

[Rachel Elliott]

If you post your room layout/dimensions.....and if you are lucky you may be able to get tips for room treatment from these pros....

Music Conductor says "test your mix on many different speakers" - and that is advice that is often given.  I rarely have cause to disagree with him, but bear in mind that professional studios don't do this sort of thing - they simply don't have the time or resources to faff around in this way.  ...Professional engineers know that if it sounds OK on the mains, it's almost certainly going to sound passably good on anything else it might be played on.

That might just be the kindest disagreement ever!  (Thank you, Graeme.)  And actually, we're not in disagreement, as Graeme's point is a really good one.  The optimal arrangement would be to be able to mix with confidence, knowing that what-you-see-is-what-you-get, so to speak.  It doesn't require $10,000 monitors to do this, but it probably requires a treated room.  My problem is that, although I enjoy mixing on Klein & Hummel or JBL studio monitors, the room is not neutral (nor are those speakers infallible, as they tend to make everything sound smoother and sweeter than on other speakers).  So my suggestion to listen multiple ways is, in effect, my subtle admission that I don't have total confidence in my mixing environment.  So that's the point: to get what reaches your ears to be trustworthy.