Stepping aside from the subjective vs objective vs measurement debate happening elsewhere, I wanted to take a different perspective.
My day job is recording and mixing jazz.
Before I became a sound engineer - I was an audiophile - and a lot of what I now do challenges some of the simple minded purity I espoused when I was only an audiophile.
I now constantly add distortion when I’m mixing music.
- EQ to make singers and instruments sound better
- Compressors to make things sound better - and to sit better in a mix
- EQ to stop masking preventing you clearly hearing two instruments playing at the same time (eg bass drum / double (upright) bass)
- Saturation to improve the sound of some types of electric guitars and vocals
- Saturation to add higher harmonics to low bass instruments so they can be heard on small speakers.
- Reverb to add a sense of space
These are all standard tools of the trade - and if used well make a piece of music sound better. And if used well - it will make close mic’d instruments (which don’t really sound natural) blend together in a semblance of what you might hear live.
So perhaps distortion is good
I have three sets of monitors in the studio
- PMC two.two.6 / two.two.sub.1 (active with Hypex amps, fed vis AES (they have DSP based crossovers))
- Rogers Studio 1 fed by a recently serviced ex BBC Quad 521f from an RME DAC
- Auratone 5c fed by a small Auratone class D amp also from an RME DAC
The room is somewhat treated - and the PMCs are in the best spot - with the sub crossover and the DSP tuned to match the roon. The Rogers are in corners because of room size limitations. The tweeters don’t have a perfect line of site to the listening position!
The PMCs are no doubt much more accurate - and generally I find if I get something to sound good on the PMCs - it will sound good (but different) on other systems.
The Rogers are much less accurate - but on some tracks they just sound beautiful - their slightly warm upper bass (they don’t have much low bass) and the extra bass from the room positioning - and the character of the mids and upper mids can sometimes really enhance a track.
I wouldn’t dare mix with them as a primary reference - because I’d end up with a mix that was wrong on other speakers.
The Auratones rarely sound great - but it’s good to check a mix sounds OK on them - because they represent how many listeners will hear your music!
Mix engineers talk about this a lot - they want a system that will translate - ie when they have a mix that sounds good on their main system - it will also sound good elsewhere.
My assumption has always been that the accuracy of the PMCs and room adjustment makes them good for mixing.
But there is no doubt that the Rogers can sometimes sound shockingly good.
I has a mastering engineer visit yesterday - he loves Reggae - and he played me some of the tracks he’s mastered. They had that fantastic reggae dub bass. I expected the Rogers to sound bad on this - but actually they sounded better than the PMCs on some tracks. The lack of the bottom octave wasn’t really an issue - the warmer upper bass compensated - and something further up added what sounded like more dynamics on the snare. My friend said he thinks passive monitors have more dynamics (which I doubt) - but we were definitely both hearing the same thing!
So I thinking what I’m saying is:-
- Distortion can sound good - otherwise mix engineers wouldn’t add it
- Even with a finished mix - sometimes less than perfect systems can make a track sound better than on a neutral system - although probably not consistently.
I would be interested in other people’s experiences.