7 Concerns When Switching Between Multiple Monitors

Brandon Drury — Sat, 22 May 2010 08:15:16 +0000

In an attempt to find issues that maybe aren't quite so obvious on one set of monitors, I'm often asked if it's a good idea to purchase multiple monitors/speakers/stereos and then use a switch gadget to switch between them. These “switch gadgets” range from A/V switches using RCA cables you can find at Walmart to much more expensive items like the Presonus Central Station or the Dangerous Audio Monitor ST-SR. Ultimately, the aim is to identify problems immediately, fix them, and save time by finding flaws before a person bothers rendering a mix, burning a cd, and moving to physically different locations to listen.

I want to make it clear that I'm coming from the attitude of a person who trusts his studio monitors. If I had to bet money on a mix translating, I would do it. This is a luxury I've only had with my Focal monitors which I purchased last October. If you aren't in this position, my views may be slightly skewed. However, just keep in mind that if you aren't willing to bet money on your mixes translating, you are missing out on the single most important requirement for maxing out your recordings. PERIOD.

I have a few random thoughts on this and I'm just going to list them here:

This is not a bad idea, but I've found having one set of monitors I REALLY trust is exponentially more beneficial than listening on multiple stereos which I do not trust. This is kind of the difference between having one honest wife or 4 lying girlfriends.
It actually takes discipline to pull this off. What happens when a guitar sound is great in one set of speakers and not-so-great in another set? If a sound is absolutely perfect in one set of speakers, do you go ahead and tear it up and “compromise” so that it only sounds really good in both speakers?
I've been in this position and ended up getting lazy, and decided not to ruin my “great” sound. It was the wrong decision as the not-so-great sound is the one that I heard pretty much everywhere else.
To pull this off properly, just using two, three, or ten different audio systems isn't an automatic life saver. These stereos must be able to expose specific flaws. For example, the only flaw in my current Focal monitoring system is sibilance is tamed a hair more than I'd like. When I switch to my Audio Technica ATH-M50s studio monitor headphones, I hear this sibilance loud and clear....assuming I didn't catch it on the Focal monitors. If another set of monitors didn't expose this sibilance, I'm not sure what benefit they would be.
Just randomly listening on different stereos has a certain benefit, but only if you really, really, know these stereos inside and out. To listen in some random car is 100% useless in my opinion as we've all been in cars where it was obvious the guy driving was both deaf and blind.
If you've never moved your monitors to a totally different room, you are probably dramatically underestimating the power the room has on the monitors. Moving a stereo from your bedroom to your recording room may turn your lion into a turtle or your snot rag into a tiger. Be prepared for a transformation.
There needs to be a boss and a subordinate in terms of your monitoring systems. If you have two “leaders” butting heads, you'll run into the discipline problem mentioned above. I think it's best to have one set trusted set of monitors you listen to 99% of the time. You test it on another system just to find flaws, but immediately after addressing it you've got to go back to the main monitors again.
There's a point when the flaws of democracy kick in. In other words, maybe one monitor tells you one thing, another monitor tells you another, and another monitor tells you another. While you want to keep all three happy enough not to revolt, I don't think you are ever going to make all three monitors 100% happy. This is the other side to the mix translation thing. You want to spend your time making a bad ass, exciting mix. You definitely do not want to spend all your time playing the “Make All Your Monitors” happy game. There are times when trying to make three monitors happy actually makes the final mix worse. Not always, but sometimes.

Upgrading Mackie HR824 to Focal Solo 6BE and Focal Sub6

Brandon Drury — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 18:58:55 +0000

I'm retarded. I just spent $3500.

I've decided that studio monitoring is the biggest problem in my life (yes both personal and recording) that I can solve with money. If only lack of sex could be solved with money. (Wait a minute!) After endless moments of hesitation, but only one loud “SCREW IT!” my wallet just got quite a bit lighter.

I ordered a pair of Focal Solo 6BE and the matching Focal Sub6.

Most hardcore upgrades I've done in audio land have been to answer questions just as much as they've been about higher audio quality. While I've certainly made big improvements in my monitoring, I've never been able to sit down to work and entirely trust my monitors. This "trust" is the single most important impact on sound quality on this side of the musician line. It's time for my mixes to skyrocket!....I hope.

Studio Monitor Questions I Hope To Answer

Will high end monitors put me in a position to automatically improve my mixes after I've gotten used to them? Will my results immediately improve?
Is there a point of diminishing return with monitors? Would I be just as happy with something of equal price but just different from my Mackie HR824s. I know people who are entirely content with the KRK V8 monitors, for example. (Are they are anally crazed about studio monitoring as I am?) Is it really necessary to spend THIS much cash on monitors? Do the high end guys focus on the robo tiny details that maybe I wouldn't notice anyway?
I've never been happy with my HR824s. I always felt they were the girlfriend out banging other guys. (I don't trust them). Will I automatically gain the trust of the Focal Solo 6BE in my current room?
Is my unhappiness with the HR824s due to the design of the speaker or problems in my room. (I have reasons to believe both although I'm totally aware of the impact and importance of the room.)
One reason I question my Mackies. In one test I used one Mackie HR824. I tossed my cheapo Behringer test mic about 4' in front of it and ran a sweep. Then I took that speaker off my cinder block stand and grabbed the other HR824 to toss it on that same cinder block stand in same position. It had a radically different frequency response. It's clear my HR824s were not matched and room acoustics weren't a factor. (Room acoustics would have been a factor if both speakers would have had an identical - if flawed - frequency response regardless of the position in the room.)
My room is treated with about 20 2' x 4' x 8” Helmholtz Resonator bass trips which I'm fairly positive I screwed up in designing and will be modifying to a more “safe” design. Additionally, I have nearly 30 “super chunk” unopened packages of 4lb Rockwool (2' x 4' x 16” roughly) in my room which some people tell me is the most effect bass trap around although it takes up a bunch of space. Some people tell me the packaging on the Rockwool renders it useless. Room modes are out of control (but probably more in control than they would be with nothing).
While my walls are about as treated as you can get (although possibly in very flawed ways), my ceiling is a bit light on treatment. I have a 9' ceiling which is little light in the acoustical loafers. It has a drop ceiling which does absorb stuff in 1K and up range it. Above the drop ceiling I managed to get a single sheet of 2' x 4' x 4” Rockwool to fit. It's possible that I need more aggressive treatments in the ceiling.
The corners of the room each contain a pair of unopened Rockwool packages. However, the point in which the walls meet the ceiling have zero treatment. In an ideal situation, I'd like to have some kind of corner treatment running along the entire edge.
I've tried dozens of new monitor placement positions this month. In all of them there has been a dip at 2Khz at between 5-10dB. A 2Khz wave has a wavelength of about 6 in give or take. In lab conditions this means it could be canceled out with a 2Khz signal that had to travel 3 in longer thus being 180 degrees out of phase. Note: I dedicate an entire chapter of Killer Home Recording: Audio Engineering to explaining this in as plain of English possible. I can't think of a single reflection that could have possibly caused this but moving the test mic subtly seems to do no good. I've wondered if the Mackies are out of phase with each other in certain frequencies.
It's entirely possible that my Mackies have actually been a mismatch or maybe one malfunctioned. Maybe in a pro environment I would have noticed this immediately. Maybe my environment is more pro than I think and I haven't been putting the blame where it should.

Conclusion
I just wasted a bunch of cash and it's very possible I'll solve nothing. If nothing else, I get to pass my potential misfortunes on to you. Regardless, by saying goodbye to the Mackies, I think few people are going to say I made a mistake.

My Results
I should be receiving my monitors at the end of this week. I have all weekend to get used to them and I have to make final tweaks to an album I'm 95% finished with mixing. Then I add my results in the studio monitoring chapter of Killer Home Recording: Audio Engineering which can also be viewed in the Turbo Member Forum.

Home Recording Blog » studio monitoring

7 Concerns When Switching Between Multiple Monitors

Upgrading Mackie HR824 to Focal Solo 6BE and Focal Sub6