Mix Challenge

Henrik Hjortnaes wrote: ↑

Thu Jun 12, 2025 00:38 CEST

Can I ask how you are going to ensure loudness match during evaluation, which tool and process for that, and if your speaker response in the room is tolerable, good, bad, unknown? Perhaps you will be using headphones also? I'm just curious, don't worry

No particular tools or process for loudness evaluation other than my ears and a volume knob! If it sounds loud I'll turn it down, if it's quiet I'll turn it up .

Monitor frequency response is technically unknown in my current setup as I've never measured it, but to my ears it's good and my mixes always translate very well. I have Genelec 8341s with a sub but I've never run the supplied GLM calibration. I tried Sonarworks with my previous monitors and it did much more harm than good so I've avoided response correction in my setup since then. May or may not use headphones for reference depending on the mix.

BenjiRage wrote: ↑

Thu Jun 12, 2025 09:39 CEST

No particular tools or process for loudness evaluation other than my ears and a volume knob! If it sounds loud I'll turn it down, if it's quiet I'll turn it up .

That's ... interesting. But it's a topic for a whole other discussion

With regards to your Genelec setup, man, I would definitely test the GLM to see if the speaker response could be improved slightly. I've used Sonarworks for speakers in the past with OK results, but I would trust the GLM calibration more (yes I know, room treatment first, but when you're unable to perfect the room, then I find that correction is usually better than nothing).

Sonarworks etc.

The issue for me is that we don't just have an EQ problem in our room, we have a waterfall plot, in other words we have the EQ profile but also a time dimension to the way sound is heard in your room. That time dimension is not addressed by the EQ so what we end up with is some correction of nodes and antinodes in the listening position but then a time dimension that is more related to how it was before. I'm not 100% sure on this, but it seems like we are giving our brain an enigma machine of a twist to decode there. When sound has become weird in these kinds of ways that is when I find my head hurting. Your brain knows something is badly wrong but just can't unscramble it.

BenjiRage wrote: ↑

Wed Jun 11, 2025 20:04 CEST

Swiv_In_Da_Mix wrote: ↑

Wed Jun 11, 2025 19:55 CEST

... so I would appreciate it we could get more information on the chain used i.e. convertors when tracking the vocal /mic/compressor/mic-pre.

You might not have read all of the text in the provided mix pack - it details that the vocals were programmed using Synthesizer V (IE: it's a computer singing ) so there is no recording chain as such!

I always pull in all of the tracks before reading the notes to make sure I get a totally unbiased view and I spent some time trying to figure out what was “wrong” with vocals as they were so ultra-clean. Not a single sss-sound, excessive breath noise or plosive. Then I read the notes and was like - “Yeah, that makes total sense”

Henrik Hjortnaes wrote: ↑

Thu Jun 12, 2025 10:20 CEST

With regards to your Genelec setup, man, I would definitely test the GLM to see if the speaker response could be improved slightly. I've used Sonarworks for speakers in the past with OK results, but I would trust the GLM calibration more (yes I know, room treatment first, but when you're unable to perfect the room, then I find that correction is usually better than nothing).

Yeah, I've heard lots of positives and I do mean to give it a go in the near future but at present my sub is a JBL so it doesn't integrate with the GLM system. It's on my "want list" to upgrade to a Genelec sub but I'm holding off until I've finished my long-term album project so I don't introduce a potentially disruptive new element into the monitoring chain.

scottfitz wrote: ↑

Thu Jun 12, 2025 12:30 CEST

I'm not 100% sure on this, but it seems like we are giving our brain an enigma machine of a twist to decode there. When sound has become weird in these kinds of ways that is when I find my head hurting. Your brain knows something is badly wrong but just can't unscramble it.

This sounds very like my past experience with Sonarworks, it just didn't sound "right" and my brain knew something was wrong. Really screwed up my mixing for a couple of weeks until I binned it off.

BenjiRage wrote: ↑

Thu Jun 12, 2025 14:53 CEST

Henrik Hjortnaes wrote: ↑

Thu Jun 12, 2025 10:20 CEST

With regards to your Genelec setup, man, I would definitely test the GLM to see if the speaker response could be improved slightly. I've used Sonarworks for speakers in the past with OK results, but I would trust the GLM calibration more (yes I know, room treatment first, but when you're unable to perfect the room, then I find that correction is usually better than nothing).

Yeah, I've heard lots of positives and I do mean to give it a go in the near future but at present my sub is a JBL so it doesn't integrate with the GLM system. It's on my "want list" to upgrade to a Genelec sub but I'm holding off until I've finished my long-term album project so I don't introduce a potentially disruptive new element into the monitoring chain.

scottfitz wrote: ↑

Thu Jun 12, 2025 12:30 CEST

I'm not 100% sure on this, but it seems like we are giving our brain an enigma machine of a twist to decode there. When sound has become weird in these kinds of ways that is when I find my head hurting. Your brain knows something is badly wrong but just can't unscramble it.

This sounds very like my past experience with Sonarworks, it just didn't sound "right" and my brain knew something was wrong. Really screwed up my mixing for a couple of weeks until I binned it off.

Just wanted to share my experience using a subwoofer and Sonarworks.

A good integrated subwoofer was a real "aha" moment for me when I bought it last year. The speakers themselves are a bit more "detailed" and the 3 dimensional aspect is much more obvious, front to back and top to bottom.

Sonarworks does take some time to get used to the sound, but after 1 month or 2 one should get good results. The crucial part is that you have to install acoustic panels on the walls and the ceiling in order to get the decay and reverberation time to your desired target. I managed to get RT60 @ 68 Hz and upwards to 300 ms, 50 Hz is 500 ms. I still need to cover one specific spot on the ceiling, I just didn't have the time to build the panel.

The important thing is to measure the room before using Sonarworks and, if needed, adjust the listening position. You want the best result possible BEFORE using room correction. If Sonarworks is boosting or cutting more than 6 db to compensate the results aren't translating well in my experience, so good room acoustic is crucial.

If you've done this Sonarworks really helps to tune the speakers to a more "neutral" setting. But, you can also mess up a few things in Sonarworks with the "wrong" settings. Another thing to consider are the different filter types, linear phase can introduce some pre-ringing for example.

Yeah @Mellow Browne The absorption is the game. Unfortunately it's a really hard game. The issue I had when I was doing it is the awareness that the frequencies are not being absorbed evenly. I had these very thick panels, but I am pretty sure that the low end still goes straight through them as if they were not there at all. So you absorb a lot of reflections of 100Hz + which is great but now you have an even bigger problem with the less than 100Hz area because it's still reflecting and now seems more prominent in the room. Bass trapping very heavily in the corners seems like a losing game to me. I get the theory and I am certain that it works to some extent, but I think the truth is that the amount of bass trapping that you actually need to control the bass in a normal rectangular residential room with parallel walls is just ridiculous and it's better to give up in my opinion. I believe that rooms need to be specially constructed in order to have good acoustic properties. Once you have made a room to be a solid walled apartment room for example, I think you are fighting a completely doomed battle (although can of course make inroads into it and get it a lot better than it is with no treatment). I would be interested to see what measurements you have taken of your space. Making it good is entirely about making as many measurements as you can and exploring what placement of what treatment will give you the smoothest response for the music you are working on. As I know you do rap, I suspect that it's the bass trapping that you need to get on top of. I think really the only proper solution is the modern electronic ones but sadly they are like 5000 bucks each or something like that and you'd probably need 4.

If u need to address issues under 100 hz u will need at least 30-40-50 centimeters fat bass traps. For the above 100 hz its more or less 50/50 reflection/absorption. Having sub sometimes can lead to having more problems then it will solve. With 2 subs is better then one. Sonarworks is working just with eq like it was mention. Time issues between the speakers is the rest of the problem. If u print a mix or what ever with sonarworks on linear phase over it u can even see how much preringing it adds ... . There was a video someone compering sonarworks , ik multimedia, neumann build in and trinov. Of course trinov was miles ahead but its too expensive at least for me.

Thanks to @scottfitz and @kombainera for sharing your experiences.
Yes, absorption is the name of the game and once you understand that "bass trapping" is not necessarily a "corner" thing it becomes easier to handle your room if you can install enough panels.

Bass trapping is in fact not only the 4 corners, it includes all walls. We tend to think only of 4 corners because we see the room as we are standing. But if you take a closer look a room has 12 corners. You want to expand the "corner trapping" on the ceiling, from wall to wall, and maybe even do the same thing on the floor. I hope you understand what I want to explain here.

From my experience, on top of the regular wall and corner panels, treating the ceiling is the most beneficial acoustic treatment because from floor to ceiling is the shortest distance in a room and this creates a lot of reflections at your listening position.
Yes, you will need a lot of panels to control the room and if you have the real estate I highly recommend to do so. And if you do it with diy panels it's not even expensive.

Unfortunately, Sonarworks only corrects the frequency response and not the timing domain, trinnov is another beast. Would love to try it in my room but the price tag is just insane. I'd rather spend money for some coaxial (Genelec) or phase corrected speakers like PSI.
There is actually another electronic bass trap which is much cheaper, it's called E-trap from Bag End, but is not as flexible as from PSI Audio for example. I found some reviews about it but they weren't so positive as I expected.

Here's my mix:

https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/kcsc7pv8 ... xsx1f&dl=0

Mixed using Focal Alpha 80s and Focal headphones in an untreated room.

Didn't do anything too crazy on the mix. Cleaned up the kicks a little and added some low end with a Peavey Kosmos and softened the transients of the hi hats with Waves Kramer Tape. Ran the lead vocals through a hardware Distressor with added Neve 551 eq for the verse vocals. Ran the mix through my analog summing chain: Neve 5059 > Manley Pultec boosting some 60 and 8k > Neve MBP doing a few db of compression and some mid/side processing > Dangerous Bax for HP and LP filters > Dangerous Comp for additional 1 db or so of compression > EQ3 plugin removing some low mids.