Some people do, but headphones isolate one ear from the other, so info panned hard to one side, never enters the ear on the other; this creates an unrealistic picture (tiresome, too).

The solution is to use headphones as a check, especially with bass. Another good use of HP’s is spotting ticks and pops form careless or quick edits.

This post PRETENDS to be an answer to joeq challenging you to back up any of your previous BS.
But once again your answer just ducks down a different alley leading away from his challenge.
You are so determined in your serial evasions and so illogical in your abandonment of every position you take that you are almost entertaining.
But as an audio engineer I would only trust you to pretend to record other low grade bots.

Where is Chess with some type of breakfast joke?

In that case you remove ALL reflections from the environment, and consequently the imaging is completely different. If you are mixing something to be listened to on headphones, this is a good thing and it's very reasonable to mix on cans in that case.

But if you're mixing something to be listened to in a room (and yes, there IS a standardized IEC listening environment), that doesn't work so well. You can learn to compensate for it to some extent but it only goes so far.

On the gripping hand, if you have a monitor system where you can't necessarily trust the low end, using headphones to make low end decisions and using monitors to make decisions about imaging can be a good combination and a lot of people have traditionally worked that way.
--scott

Is this just troll bait or are you an actual idiot?

He/she/they could be both, many are

He doesn’t usually evade any opportunities. Maybe he is out for breakfast.

I'll fill in until he gets back

the cereal evasions that bug me the most are when Count Chocula is not available all year round.

"Let's be honest now..."

Magically Delicious Hearts, Moons, Stars, and Clovers!
Blind Test: I can tell the difference!

If you're a scientist, and you can't disprove my theory then you're not much of a scientist now are you? That's part of science buddy.

Here I was thinking the thread update was the OP with an update on his situation, but it's this walnut still posting nonsense. Just go away and try doing something useful with your life dude.

Very, very sad.
It doesn’t seem that they took advantage of the long delay since your last post to upgrade your program.
But you suggest an interesting question… do bots have buddies?

That is absolutely not part of science. The burden of proof is on you. The burden of extraordinary proof is on the people who have made the extraordinary claims.

"what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."

I see this actually as you finally admitting defeat. You have no evidence for your crackpot ideas about sound; you have gotten your ass kicked in all 'debate' so far; everyone is laughing at you. So now you are reduced to challenging people to "disprove" a silly idea that comes with no evidence to back it up other than your say-so. That's not how it works.

My 'theory' is that you are a bot. Disprove my theory.

"Science" is under no obligation to disprove every piece of bullshit that the crackpots come up with. I don't have to prove that "there is no Bigfoot", the Sasquatch 'researchers' have to prove there IS a Bigfoot.

I already provided proof. LOL If you don't want to look at it, then that's on you.

If you're such an expert, feel free to post some of your mixes for critique.

I think the question is who are you mixing for? If you want to have a room that is professional or just to make demos?
Do you want to construct something or use room tools like Ik or Sonarworks?

Headphones are a tough road because everything sounds good on them. I’d get good ballpark mixes and find someone to work with to finish. I use a guy who’s amazing at that and doesn’t break the bank.

Happy to share info but honestly there are a lot of great engineers that would love the work and if working off deadline can fill in and get you results that will sound great anywhere…Concentrate on what you know and what your objectives are….

To be honest I think it's time to close this thread, the philosophy of science is interesting but the walnut brings nothing to the debate.

So then tell me what the ideal situation is? There's a lot of studios in new york city, and they have different acoustic designs. They can't all be of equal ability to translate correct? Or no?

Every treated room has problems, but they have way fewer problems than untreated rooms.

See how easy that is?

Show me the science that says a small treated room is better than a large untreated room with superior dimensions. LOL

If the end listener is going to be playing back in a small room, you should be mixing in a small room. If the end listener is going to be playing back in a large room, you should be mixing in a large room. The mixing room should emulate the playback environment.

This is why movies are mixed for theatrical presentation in a huge dubbing theatre that approximates the acoustics of a movie theatre, while TV shows intended to watch in your living room are mixed in a smaller control booth.

If you want to know what a proper monitoring situation should be, there is an ITU standard on the subject, ITU BS.1116-1 which talks about the basic requirements for a room for mixing material that will translate to typical living room playback. You should be able to find a copy of that standard with a google search.

Now, you SHOULD know that the way we think about big rooms and small rooms are different, because in a small room the reflections are perceived as frequency response changes, while in a larger room the time delay for those reflections is longer and so they are perceived as discrete echos. The F. Alton Everest book I cited earlier in this thread details the science here.
--scott

You are, again, not responding to the original simple comparison (treated vs untreated rooms).
You are, again, making an emergency reroute into a much more complicated comparison.
Why would anyone take your latest request as a serious concern in this thread?

Every one of those studios has treatments. There are no professional studios that I have ever seen that are left untreated because they are "large" and the owner believe in some crackpot theory that size is such an overriding concern that treatments are unnecessary,. Every one has people booking them to mix - not just the big rooms.

Every studio that has ever made a hit record has demonstrated its ability to "translate". In NY, there are quite a few.

It is clear that are only capable of deflecting, changing the subject or moving the goalposts when challenged to defend your 'theories'. As far as anyone left in the thread is concerned, you are still a troll and you still have nothing useful or interesting to contribute. The OP has certainly got the information he was seeking in the first few pages.

I should have put you on my ignore list several pages ago, but better late than never.

You haven't provided anything other than random quotes and unsubstantiated opinion.

Most acousticians are not mix engineers, nor should they be - they're experts in their field. I don't get what your point is?

- there are many different philosophies on control room design. At the low end - you're just trying to make something that's usable (see someone like Philip Newell's books). At the high end, you've got established designers with their own philosophies and designs (Sam Toyishima (have I spelt that right)? Northward Acoustics etc) who build high end rooms with high budgets.

- different people like different things. Different people like different speakers. A perfectly flat, dead room isn't very inspiring. But a consistent room with a level bass end and a decent reverb response with no flutters is inspiring.

Exactly.

Personally, I did a university course to understand this. So if you're actually interested, you can do the same.

Once you understand the principles of acoustics (the text book is F. Alton Everest's "Principles of Acoustics" as it happens...!) it's simple maths.

It's also common bloody sense. Go mix in a hall with an RT60 time of 4 secs and see how easy it is.

Go mix in a small bedroom with a lumpy response.

Get rid of some of the lumps in the bedroom with basic treatment.

At this point - you're really trolling. You have zero clue about what you're talking about, but instead of learning from those who do, you're arguing.

Clueless.

Pointless.

Waste of everyone's time, including your own.

I don't think anyone on the forum is taking him seriously anymore. If they ever did. Certainly no-one on this thread is!

You are a moderator and know the rules. My guess is that this thread is too harmless to shut down. The “space alien” thread has lasted sooo long, and it is only slightly less connected to reality than this one. So I guess I will fold my tent and here and search for a more productive thread.

Go post that in the acoustics forum I dare you. : )

Movies are the only exception here as the environments are supposed to be part of a standard. Like X Curve for example.

Your mixes will translate to smaller rooms better if you mixed in a neutral space. To get that you do really need enough volume to design and build in.

Everybody's lounges are going to be different sizes and ratios. That makes what you are suggesting a crap shoot. You cant emulate peoples domestic situations because they are all wildly different. Thats why you mix in a big enough space to have the best chance of translation in the real world.
You only have to change a rooms dimensions slightly to get a wildly different acoustic. Your mix needs to stand the best chance of sounding good in the real world in all these different spaces.

This is why there is an ITU standard listening and mixing room!

By "small room" I do not mean a closet with massive low frequency issues like many people seem to want to mix in today, but I also do not mean a large and cavernous mixing stage. If it's appropriate to use a reverb time measurement, it's a large room. If it's not appropriate, it's a small room.

If you mix in a completely dead room where all of the room acoustics have been eliminated, you wind up adding short reverb to mixes to make them sound right, or pulling microphones way back, and then they don't sound right in the living room.
--scott

Just mix so it sounds as good as it can everywhere….a good mix translates, that’s the whole point! Otherwise it’s not a good mix….!

Yes totally. Whatever you do don't try and guess where the person will be listening to it and base you mix on that guess.

Another reason you need a larger space to mix in is so that your brain can deal with the termination gap from recordings that were done in larger spaces.

Only one person,besides myself has provided any outside evidence for their arguments.

I've seen what trained professionals do sets up for large audio and studios are doing, and it doesn't follow the same dogma here. You just admitted that rooms with reverb are more inspirational, so are you going against the standard advice of filling the room with standard 2-4 inch panels? It seems pretty obvious, that there are different standards and most people don't want to admit to that.

Not 100% sure on what you're saying here..no orchestras yet but I've mixed string sections and big drum room sounds in my small space!