Near Field Monitors (This shouldn't take too long, right?)

If there's a thread out there that already discusses this one ad nauseum, please just throw a link up with my apologies.

I use a pair of Audix nearfields in my little home studio, with a QSC amp. It seems that just about everything I do up there ends up sounding
really tubby by the time my cd hits the player in my truck. I realize that a stock cd player/sound system in an Explorer isn't exactly an ideal
testing environment, but considering how much time I spend in that vehicle driving back and forth to work every day, I'm verrrry used
to how cd's sound in it, so it makes for a familiar benchmark by which to measure all my homegrown crap.

I've read some threads before about how you have to be careful with bass response with nearfields. Maybe their very nature doesn't really
lend itself to good low end? (i.e. you really oughtta have a nice big pair of monitors mounted inside the wall a few feet in front of you, to
really give you an accurate reproduction of what the bottom end sounds like) However, could it just be my Audix nearfields? Should I
consider some Tannoy's or maybe a pair of what's probably a thousand different types of nearfields out there? I guess I'm just looking for
success stories with other nearfields. Maybe some powered speakers, and chuck the amp? Anyway, thanks.

There are loads of threads about this!

But if you want a simple answer, then play a CD that sounds okay to good in your truck through your monitor system. What does that sound like compared to your mixes? What you want (obviously!) is for your mixes to have the same overall balance as this. So do comparisons until you've 'learned' the sound of your 'monitors'.

All other options are more expensive, and involve room treatment and better monitors anyway. Also, bear in mind that if your monitors are producing relatively too much bass, then your mix is likely to be bass-light to compensate for it. So if you are getting too much bass in your truck, the chances are that the monitors are a bit on the light side. But since the mixes appear to be sounding okay when you make them, then the speakers are clearly capable of producing enough - so maybe all you need to do is to increase the bass drive to them slightly when mixing. Just do a few experiments to get it right.

That doesn't guarantee that you will be doing flat mixes though - anything but! All it means is that you've achieved a workable compromise between the (presumably untreated) room modes where you mix, and the rather higher-frequency ones in your truck.

It might be worth trying out Har-Bal to see how your mixes 'look' by comparison to those you like - you might find some holes (or humps!) at specific parts of the audio spectrum which are colouring your mixes - http://www.har-bal.com

regarding har-bal  (apoligies for hi jacking thread)

Andrew, to you use the app?

while it might move some of the pieces around the board does it actually present capabilities out side, not accessable from AA (I have upgraded Ozone over the years as well as AA)?

not meaning to be terminally snobbish but that there is no demo available and they seem to believe touting Craig Andertons tout to be a positive marketing effort has always made them seem a bit suspect

but have been consistantly impressed with quality of pristine audio's audio over the years . . . so? just curious if this is something you actually use

Voxengo's Curve EQ does something similar and does have a demo version available.

http://www.voxengo.com/product/curveeq/

You can do it manually to some extent in Audition using Frquency Analysis and Parametric EQ but HarBal and CurveEQ operate in many more bands.

P.S. CurveEQ is a VST plugin so can be used within AA.

I just got done scarfing up all of the reading material on Har-Bal and CurveEQ. Both seem quite similar in function.
I, too, am extremely curious if anyone is using Har-Bal.

It seems that Har-Bal would be mainly for mastering, and not for real-time analysis while you're in the mix process.
Not that it's that big a deal, since you can always go back and make adjustments based on what Har-Bal is reporting...
but that might get a little tedious, doing it in such a trial-and-error way. CurveEQ seems like something you could
have running while you're mixing, to give you on-the-spot reporting of any hot-spots or holes.

Is anyone using CurveEQ? I'd love some testimonials from you guys.

I use Har-bal sometimes when working on restoration projects - it can be useful to get you to a result that would have otherwise taken ages. Also it's good if you are trying to give a bunch of tracks a 'feel'.

I believe that Andrew Rose uses it extensively, but he gets up to tricks that he might be less than willing to share (and I don't blame him) - because they give him a commercial edge...

Steve, this really goes back to my original question/problem. My monitors and my room just aren't that accurate.
I'm sick and tired of spending all this time getting what certainly sound like nice, tight mixes with clarity and
pop in my studio, only to have them sound boomy and muddy on other systems. I'm hoping that Har-Bal or that
CurveEQ will help disclose the truth about my mixes that my studio is hiding from me all the time.

I feel like I've got a decent pair of ears. Really. Not super great, like you guys who've done this for years
and years...but this has been a real hobby of mine for a long time now. I've read your (and everyone else's)
advice on how to fix this (and more tutorials and FAQ's than I can count), but just can't seem to find that
missing link. Frustrating, I must say. In my world of audio, I'm hoping that Har-Bal will help shed some light.

Thanks, all.

Steve, this really goes back to my original question/problem. My monitors and my room just aren't that accurate.
I'm sick and tired of spending all this time getting what certainly sound like nice, tight mixes with clarity and
pop in my studio, only to have them sound boomy and muddy on other systems. I'm hoping that Har-Bal or that
CurveEQ will help disclose the truth about my mixes that my studio is hiding from me all the time.

I feel like I've got a decent pair of ears. Really. Not super great, like you guys who've done this for years
and years...but this has been a real hobby of mine for a long time now. I've read your (and everyone else's)
advice on how to fix this (and more tutorials and FAQ's than I can count), but just can't seem to find that
missing link. Frustrating, I must say. In my world of audio, I'm hoping that Har-Bal will help shed some light.

Thanks, all.

You've answered your own question.  The missing link IS your monitors and your room.  From your descriptions it's obvious that your monitoring situation isn't even close to accurate.  You really need to be able to hear what's there before you can manipulate it and if your speakers aren't reproducing what's there then you can't hear it and that's why your mixes are sounding like junk on other systems.  (I'm speaking from a lot of experience doing this exact same thing - my forehead recently just healed from all the wall-banging it did trying to make mixes better while mixing with a bad monitoring situation.)
If you are recording the tracks using the monitoring situation, that makes it all the worse because the monitors and room aren't allowing you to hear the fact that you might be making a poor recording until it is entirely too late and you are stuck trying to fix it in the mix because the tracks sound like mud on other systems. 
It's a vicious circle that starts and stops with the monitoring setup.

I hear what you're saying. The thing that kills me is that I don't own junk. I can listen to commercial CDs in my studio
and they sound a-ok. I've read that mixing at lower volumes sometimes is helpful, which I do follow. It seems that
lowering the volume to normal speaking amplitude would eliminate the possibility of my room causing any anomolies.
I guess I'm just wondering if Har-bal might be a good tool to use to tune up my room. I'm willing to slap a multiband
graphic on my board's monitor output in order to make this happen, but at the moment I don't have anything I can
trust.

I read one thread where someone played pink noise from his monitors while placing a condenser mic at the listening
position, then used Har-bal to adjust his monitor eq to flatten out the response to fit his room. Makes sense. Perhaps
this could be the critical step I need? I don't intend to use Har-bal to repair crappy mixes. I only want to improve
the quality of what I'm tracking (like you said). Maybe what I'm recording is just ass. I accept that this is a very real
possibility. (I'm curious what my acoustic guitar track would sound like after you guys have messed with it. I might
be shocked to hear what you'd send back to me! (Not terribly practical outside of the mix, I know...I'm just typing
out my thoughts))

It seems that lowering the volume to normal speaking amplitude would eliminate the possibility of my room causing any anomolies.

Sorry, not a chance of that. If you are hearing differences like that, then I'd be extremely suspicious of what your monitors are doing at different levels. The room's responses have to be linear with level - there is no mechanism in any building materials that I'm aware of that can produce level-dependant artefacts! The only mechanical device that can get rid of room effects is a pair of headphones - and even with those, you have to be careful about the bass response - it can be deceptive.

I guess I'm just wondering if Har-bal might be a good tool to use to tune up my room. I'm willing to slap a multiband graphic on my board's monitor output in order to make this happen, but at the moment I don't have anything I can trust.

Sorry again, but that's another big no-no. Look at it this way; you have the errors in your room, which will be extremely position-dependant, and you are introducing more errors into the speaker feed that are fixed. So even if you can get one position where everything works, you'll need a head brace. The whole 'monitor EQ' approach has been thoroughly discredited, one way or another - simply because it invariably makes things worse when done in isolation. There are a couple of solutions that can fine-tune your monitor system - but all of the manufacturers of them that I've spoken to absolutely insist that their devices only really work in rooms that have been basically treated to get rid of the first reflections from the monitors, and been bass-trapped in the corners - and that's a bare minimum. At this point, the good systems can fine-tune the time responses, which will give you a much better idea of imaging in a stereo field, and the not-so-good ones will try to correct the overall response - which is still a mistake.

I only want to improve the quality of what I'm tracking (like you said). Maybe what I'm recording is just ass. I accept that this is a very real possibility. (I'm curious what my acoustic guitar track would sound like after you guys have messed with it. I might be shocked to hear what you'd send back to me! (Not terribly practical outside of the mix, I know...I'm just typing out my thoughts))

If you are recording and then mixing in an effectively untreated room, then you have also effectively doubled the errors! Every peak in the room will be recorded as such, and then when reproduced, the monitors will re-excite exactly the same causal mechanism - so you get it twice. Same goes for dips. In a particularly bad room, you don't really stand a chance, I'm afraid. You have to treat the room first before you get anywhere. What are its dimensions?

The thing that kills me is that I don't own junk.

The equipment may not be, but it's beginning to sound as though the room itself might be, I'm afraid.

Ouch!!! Man, this is getting painful. I'm so embarrassed about the room I'm using now that describing its shape and dimensions makes me feel
like I won't be able to post anymore from the rock I'm about to crawl under. Screw it, here it is:

It's the room over my garage. I've converted this room into my home studio. It's got an A-frame ceiling that's about 9 feet to the peak in the
middle. Both sides slope downward at about a 45-degree angle until they hit the walls, at which point it's vertical to the floor, which is about
3-4 feet. The room is about 15 feet long by 12 feet wide. I've got my board and monitors setup at the long end of the room, against the
window. That wall/window is at the opposite side of the little staircase and doorway that takes you up to the room.

So yeah, all my audio is seemingly bouncing down to the floor from the ceiling. I know it's horrible, but surely I'm not the only guy here
who's converted his FROG into a studio, right? Right? What if I were to just build a small 8x8 area around the console using PVC and some
of those U-Haul blankets? I've seen people post this idea for makeshift mic booths. Could the same work for tracking and mixing? (Man, I
feel so exposed right now  )

Steve, thanks for all the skinny. I know this is maddening.

It's the room over my garage. I've converted this room into my home studio. It's got an A-frame ceiling that's about 9 feet to the peak in the middle. Both sides slope downward at about a 45-degree angle until they hit the walls, at which point it's vertical to the floor, which is about
3-4 feet. The room is about 15 feet long by 12 feet wide. I've got my board and monitors setup at the long end of the room, against the window. That wall/window is at the opposite side of the little staircase and doorway that takes you up to the room.

Sometime over the next couple of days I'll send you a sketch of probably what's the bare minimum you'd need to do to get over the worst of something which almost certainly ranks as an acoustic disaster! I hope you're good with timber and a saw...

[Rachel Elliott]

Now this is getting exciting. 

   Ok, now I'm just laughing hysterically! I had no idea it was such an exquisite nightmare of a room!
This is too funny. Yes, please, by all means send me a rough idea of what would most certainly be better. Would this
little bit of construction be built inside my room, or would I be better off trying to dedicate another room in my
house to be my studio? I can't wait to see what you're sending me!