You might consider using Minimum Phase for low-latency tracking, and Linear Phase when mixing, but the best bet is to see what works for you. Unsurprisingly, Mixed Phase sits somewhere between the two.
On a basic level, minimum phase gives much lower latency, but will exhibit increasing shifts in phase the harder the EQ has to work, whereas Linear Phase will maintain phase coherence, but at the cost of increased latency and possible subtle pre-ringing artefacts. In the grand scheme of things, the differences here will be minimal, although better interfaces with better converters will give a more open sound. So what are the main issues we face? Well, if you think about your entire system, it starts with your audio interface and cables. Ultimately, it’s much easier to achieve a good mix, to analyse reference material, and to trust your ears when you’re not battling against acoustic imperfections. When I checked the frequency balance of my room several months later, I could see that there was a big bump around that region, which in turn had lead me to dial down those particular frequencies to compensate. Thankfully it sounded (mostly) good through the big speakers, but it was apparent that the booming kick drum was lacking in punch around the 100-200Hz region. As a case in point, I was working on a house track a couple of years ago, and was lucky enough to test out the mix on the Fabric sound system during a packed club night. Specific problems in the studio can manifest themselves in very real ways in your mixes.
Sonarworks reference 4 impulse response mac#
RØDETest’s FuzzMeasure 4.0 is Mac only… for the moment! It’s a rite of passage that all producers must face, when they excitedly take their new track (on CD or USB or Soundcloud etc) to listen in a car or on a friend’s stereo, only to realise the mix sounds like a drunken drum machine wading through a swamp! But maybe it’s not totally your fault. However, the reality for most of us when attempting to mix on lesser systems in untuned rooms, is an experience of frustration as we struggle to make our mixes translate. We’ve all felt slightly sickened by stories of producer “X” who made hit song “Y” on computer speakers in their bedroom. Technically, we can do this with any situation, including our studios, and, in theory, as long as you learn your system well by listening to lots of references, you can create decent mixes. What at first sounded a little quiet and muffled, is eventually flattened out by the mind as it recalibrates to the new norm. Have you ever been at a really loud gig and put in your earplugs, and thought, “Argh, I’m losing a bunch of high frequencies here and I’ll struggle to enjoy this.” Then, lo and behold, 10 minutes later you’re toe-tapping away and have nearly forgotten they’re not there? The brain is pretty spectacular at controlling our perception of sound volume and frequency distribution. Then we’ll look at how we can use affordable solutions to improve the situation and fine-tune your studio space to achieve sonic perfection. In this feature, we’re going to take a look at the various monitoring issues often faced by producers and engineers that cause them to pull their hair out. Over the last 15 to 20 years, this type of room calibration has started to creep into more and more studios, as computers have become powerful enough to run our audio through high-grade correctional filters that help flatten out any audio issues caused by our speakers, room or headphones.
Sonarworks reference 4 impulse response software#
By measuring the unwanted peaks and troughs in a system, clever software can create an inverse EQ curve to compensate. It’s no surprise then, that we’ve turned to technology to give a helping hand. Likewise, if we were to take the room out of the equation and just listen through high-quality headphones, there’s still a massive variation from manufacturer to manufacturer, and headset to headset.
Sound is such a delicate, complicated beast, that even in the best-treated rooms, the frequency response is never truly flat.