Very good video. Most professional engineers use different studios which is why ear training is so important. During my last semester in college, the class was fairly large so it was split up into four groups. My college has four different studios. The groups would rotate between the studios when doing mixing projects. All four studios were vastly different and had different monitors which is why ear training and testing translation is so important. Many great mixes were made using subpar equipment. The engineer was the difference.
I've been recording and mixing all kinds of music since the mid-80's. We listened to the program material on E V E R Y T H I N G : car stereo, AM radio speakers, transistor radios, PA speakers in overhead ceiling panels, a shitty mono speaker we bought from Radio Shack. EVERYTHING. This isn't called ear training, bro. It's called bulletproofing your mix. Listening to material on different pro studios won't matter if you recorded a turd tune because no one will listen to it. The best/least you could do is to at least make it 'sound good' (whatever that means). Pro tip: learn to mix in mono and listen to your mixes in the next room outside of your monitoring space. If the vibe is still good in these spaces, stop mixing. You're done. Master to -1.0 dB (or whatever LUFS level has been decided on) and you're done. BTW...ear training as a term is mainly for musicians to be able to discern pitch and intervals whilst playing. For old school engineers, it's bulletproofing.
@@J3unG Thanks bro! What I meant by ear training is being able to identify the difference between a good sounding snare (or any other instrument for that matter) versus a crappy sounding one and how it sits in the mix.
Hey man geat vid. Due to limitations in my studio room wich I share with mi wife, I cannot put any acoustic treatment. I own a pair of focal alpha 50. This correction software will be enough? I mean if this adapt the sound to the room why is treatment even needed?
I do also use a setup with a measuring mic and software to find issues fast. However MOST of the issues can not be corrected via EQ, because they are dynamic in the room. Thus the frequency curves are for me a help to find issues, gain knowledge, where the issue might come from (e.g. by comparing wall distances with the problematic frequencies) and measure out, if some solution improved the situation. Only problems, which are static in the room can AFTERWARDS be minimized by EQs. In lits of cases, this reduction is nit worth it, depending on your used hardware.
Awesome video Kyle and serendipitous too! I had to reconfigure TotalmixFX for my UFX II yesterday and I was like, " ...there has to be a better way!" It never occurred to me to just import the EQ curve for use on the hardware! Thank you so much for this! 😀🤩
Gotta remember some areas of the frequency response can't really be eqed out, it will never look like a perfect/near perfect line and no speakers go down to 1hz so don't try to push your speakers below of what they're capable.
Corrective EQ only works in one position, and can make things worse everywhere else in the room. Room frequent aerations are time based, which EQ cannot compensate for.
Which is why you measure from where you’ll be sitting when you mix. For just production it doesn’t matter. If you’re listening analytically to a track you’re sitting still in the sweet spot anyway.
@@runningwolf877 Using EQ to try and compensate for time based aberrations (Modes and reflections) is not a good idea. Instead acoustically the room with bass traps and early reflection absorbers
If I experience frequent aerations in the studio I usually visit the toilet to free things up. Spool chock is very poor at correctly guessing what you meant to type 😊
@@porkpie2884 you’re just not at that level. (I don’t mean that rudely) You do this to calibrate ANY room, treated or not when you want to hear everything going on in your mix. Treating the room doesn’t calibrate it to your specific gear and systems. There’s so, so much more involved. Like calibration of the floor at 2db- for low end translation, bass traps and absorbers won’t get you there.
@@runningwolf877 What a rude & patronising post. And if you're going to be rude and patronising you better make sure you know what you're talking about. You haven't a clue about the time based nature of room modes and reflections. get lost.
Great video! I was thinking of doing this myself so i was looking at either getting an ecm8000 and doing REW or just biting the bullet and getting SoundID. Would you say there would be a large difference in quality between the 2?
Hey man geat vid. Due to limitations in my studio room wich I share with my wife, I cannot put any acoustic treatment. I own a pair of focal alpha 50. This correction software will be enough? I mean if this adapt the sound to the room why is treatment even needed?
I've been wanting to do this for awhile now!! How would I get it done with a MACKIE DL32S running with a Ipad Pro? I mainly do live bands outside. (Concerts in the park and such.) Would it make that big of a difference? Would love to know your opinion!!
Looks like useful software and procedures. But, considering the Survey information below, since most people listen to music on headphones, shouldn't EQing be more focused on those devices? 🤷 "While a 2017 Statista survey found that 87% of US respondents use headphones for music, it's difficult to determine the exact percentage of people who listen to music on headphones versus speakers. However, here's what's known about headphone use: Age demographics 80% of younger adults use headphones, compared to 53% of adults aged 30-49 and 28% of those aged 50-79. Usage frequency 88.6% of participants in one study listened to headphones daily or multiple times per week."
@@EchoReverb6 You’re right. I checked RME and Sonarworks and only UCXII (among other recent hardware versions) are included in Room EQ implementation (specific firmware releases for that purpose). Sorry. I was hoping they were still offering all TotalMix FX facilities to their interfaces, which did not happen; they are selective depending on the device/firmware.
Frustrating video: Once again in calibration videos, the position of the calibration microphone is different. In one video, it must be placed horizontally, in another, vertically... What's the right position?
Your microphone should have calibration files for both. Without knowing what you're trying to achieve, horizontally on axis to measure the speaker, vertical to measure the room.
Hey! When using SoundID Reference, the software guides you through the measurement procedure and every detail is described during each step. When measuring 2.0 setups, you will position the mic horizontally at a 0 degree angle towards the center of the speakers (30 degree angle to L and R), while in multichannel setups the mic is positioned vertically at a 90 degree angle to the C channel. You don't have to know this, the software will tell you and show you exactly what to do.
EQ is a slippery slope concept. EQ can fix tonal issues with a signal that is unaffected by its environment, but EQ CANNOT fix environmental related issues. If you want to make your EQ curve look pretty, make your smoothing and a larger time window. If you want to see all the problems you can't fix, use less smoothing, and a shorter time window. The best trick for dealing with environmental sound issues, is to recognize, assess, and accept what compromises you can make. Most correction needs to start by fixing the environmental problem, after that, EQ can only mask or reduce the apparentness of the problem. EQ will NEVER fix an environmental problem. Move one step in either direction, and a new problem will exist.
