> The 'best' mixing environment isn't a 'properly designed listening space'=
at all. It's one of the more interesting evolutions in music / sound in re=
cent years that there has been a move away from mixing in such places, whic=
h don't have any relevance to how the results (a cd, a film etc etc) will b=
e listened to. As with all these judgements there is no 'right' or 'proper'=
place. When it comes to field recording for example it could be argued tha=
t the last thing one should always aim for is to mix the recordings in a st=
udio / designed for sound setting - which is, in effect, the opposite to th=
e material collected. At the end of the day its all down to the ears anyway=
& they are always personal of course. I think part of this is also the poi=
nt you were making anyway ?
Sorry, but this opinion flies in the face of 75 years of audio technology e=
xperience (by audio engineers, not yours truly). Mixing and mastering engin=
eers take great care to create a monitoring environment that is as neutral =
as possible. We know that listeners will be hearing our productions on high=
ly colored systems and at widely varying playback levels. We can't predict =
that; the best we can do is to produce recordings that are balanced in a ne=
utral environment, checked in mono and loud and soft. Anything else is madn=
ess.
For example, say an engineer likes bass. So he or she turns up the bass on =
their monitoring system. Then recordings mixed and equalized on that system=
will end up being light on bass!
> 'As field recordists, we have no option but to use headphones' - I know w=
hat you mean but actually we do have other options. I sometimes record with=
out listening to the recording activity - so recording without monitoring t=
he equipment. This isn't because I don't care about the recording - far fro=
m it. For me its to do with getting closer to the act of listening in situ.=
Aside from that, in actuality the history of field recording has only rela=
tively recently been about the use of headphones at all times. Location sou=
nd, yes - but field recording was very often done without the use of headph=
ones other than to set basic levels.
Monitoring while recording is best, though often during a set piece recordi=
ng I'll go for a walk to explore and keep warm. Recording in the field I'm =
listening for two things, first, problems with the equipment; a mic startin=
g to sputter, or a cable chomped through by a squirrel. Another reason to l=
isten is to annotate the recording in real time. It takes 90 minutes to ann=
otate a 90-minute recording back home. If the contents can be noted in the =
field, that's time saved.
> on the basic subject of this thread, whilst its a personal thing anyway, =
I for one can't see the advantage of such an emphasis & reliance on headpho=
ne listening in this context. It seems to be a product of the mainstream mu=
sic consumption industry rather than any effort to improve listening.
With regard to production (making CDs, radio shows) headphone listening is =
more important than before because a larger proportion of the audience is l=
istening on earbuds. So you are right, it's a product of the music consumpt=
ion industry. Knowing that affects our choice of mic arrays and mic positio=
ns.
-Dan
|