on which frequenzy the bass boost start in Sonarworks 4 ? For my self I used the audeze lcd 2 classic with sonarworks 5, and its working so fine.

hm. Immediate visceral dislike for the studio mix in comparison to the live mix. The limiting and difference in reverb are the big players for me. I just don't like the closed feeling of it.

Awesome Ian, good learning from you, can you do a video on LRA or loudness range, how it is important in mastering scene and what role it plays in loudness, thanks in advance ❤

The TT DR is often the same for vinyl (as in this example) Master as for a CD, even so there may be transients in the vinyl sound that add peak noise and other defects of analog reproduction since these extractions are not made by professionals or purists. In fact you will notice that there may be more than one TT DR record for the same record. This is a normal situation that sound purists know very well and we act accordingly, evaluating if possible several DR records of the same record by different authors. In CDs these situations also occur in those CDs that were recorded with Pre-emphasis, some authors edit in the CD record pre-emphasis or De-emphasis so that the reader takes it into account, the problem comes when it is not indicated that it has been recorded with Pre-emphasis, this can cause confusion.

I wish they had sent you the MM-100 as well, haha. I’m having a hard time deciding between buying those or the HD 650. The build quality of the MM-100 seems vastly superior to that of the HD 650, but I can’t test the sound quality before buying, so... If you get the chance to try them out, I’d love to hear your thoughts!

My Audezes had a great tone but really poor reliability. The original flat cable was just a poor joke. Poor engineering damaged the ear pads. Then finally one of the drivers died and that was the end of the story. I could have bought similar new Audezes for the money it would have costed to get them repaired. The failure happened with very little use. Never again that kind on bs. Instead of repairing that piece on junk I bought Meze headphones.

100% agree that LCD-X are unpleasant straight out of the box, and misleading: poorly tuned. For a while, I thought Sonarworks was the answer even though their curve is clearly wrong (users have been complaining for years, as I found out, and Sonarworks did nothing about it). I tried to defend using it on x% but eventually I just felt silly; if the correction works, it should work on 100%. That was until I found AutoEQ's site and used one of the free Harman Curve-based offerings there (thanks to Paul Third's coverage). This was absolutely transformative: the correct adjustment, at last. I have EqualizerPRO sent into the monitoring side of Voicemeeter Banana but my sequencer is router to the interface itself, which means my correction can never get accidentally baked into my bounced audio. This also taught me that Sonarworks' philosophy about "flatness" isn't actually good. Harman feels like my monitor speakers across air, and the decisions I make are much better. The MM-500s are really good, but I just didn't like the bass handling on them. They're fine with the "musical area" of bass but not as good with the deepest subs.

Great video! 6:37 me a bit more confidence on my process for getting started with mastering. I use the LCD-Xs for mastering with sonarworks calibration set to 75%. I run them through SPL phonitor 1d with crossfeed. It's been a great way for me to get started with mastering. Saves forking out loads of money for monitors and room treatment!

It would be interesting to see a comparison of two exact same signals but one recorded at 24 bit and the other at 8 bit. Not having the dither in the middle.

It is as complicated to mix with headphones as it is to measure the rendering of a headset. The rendering will also depend on the morphology of the person wearing it. As much as it is possible to correct the acoustics of a room to optimize the coupling between the speakers and the room. Whereas for a headset it is complicated unless you make custom molded ears. I use from time to time when I have no choice, custom in-ear ears from Earsonics (EM4), the rendering is very flat.

A very interesting video it would be a comparison between HD 650 and MM 500. Since both of them have very similar eq curve. Just because everyone in other videos is talking about how the planars have more detailed sound. Personally I've tried for mixing, LCD 2 (not LCD X) and I didn't feel anything "really special" in the details compared to HD 650....but maybe it's just my ears :)

Very helpful! Thanks for posting!!!!

I have tried MM-500 and MM-100. I like MM-100 more than MM-500. In my opinion, I feel MM-500 sounds more hifi. For mastering I finally will send to some experienced mastering engineer such as Streaky in London😃 But I will check master with different kind of headphones such as Audeze MM-100, HD800S, Focal Bathys…etc. For wireless close back headphone, I recommend that you may try out Focal Bathys. In my opinion, it sounds much natural than the Audeze one. If you connected it with it USB C cable and use its DAC. It sounds like a open headphone. Moreover it price is similar with Audeze one.😃

I use Audeze Penrose (PC model) with a curve applied on internal EQ based on Scan's test of them. Pretty happy. I use them corded (aux). But for mixing, not mastering... I get Other Ears involved for mastering!

Audeze are great, no question, I had a pair of lcdx until recently when the earpads fell of. Yes, since they are glued to the frame they get old and break. Ok no problem replace them dude.. I bought the replacement pads and when I was cleaning the glue of the old ones one screw flew attracted to the magnets and pierced one driver. Yes, my fault but be aware if you have to replace the pads. Now the repair here in Germany cost thousand euros, so it would be wiser to buy a new pair, butt nope, I'm going for the focals clear this time.

Love your videos, Ian!

Mastering on LCD-X 2021 here, and in my opinion Audeze themselves provide the best correction curve through their Reveal+ software. You simply choose your headphone model, disable all of the room/speaker emulation, and you are left with a very accurate and alive sounding monitoring situation. I have tried most other correction curves out there, and I have implemented them through several different high quality EQs, but I always end up feeling that they create an unnatural sounding midrange and rob the signal of energy and resolution. This is not the case with Reveal+ at all, everything stays very natural and direct. Reveal+ can be downloaded for free, you can try all of its fancy features, and then after the trial ends you can keep using the frequency response correction for free. If you then wish to bring the experience closer to a pair of speakers in a room, I highly recommend Goodhertz CanOpener for their class-leading and highly flexible crossfeed algorithm, which can help greatly with panning decisions and low end translation. LCD-X 2021 mostly need a big lift below 100 Hz and a boost of everything 2-5 kHz in order to sound balanced. Once you have this corrected in a way that sounds natural, these headphones will translate beautifully to other systems. I hope this helps someone and I would be very interested in what you think about it Ian 🙂

I own both MM500 and X 2021 and I never get the bass right without checking on real (decent) monitors.

I recently bought OneOdio Monitor 60's on recommendation for mastering and composing, and they're not bad for the price. Looking for a profile for them is the trick though. A shame really. I do have them set up in the Nuendo 13 headphone monitor calibration plugin, under another maker, but would be nice to see the Monitor 60's listed in any application software. There are much worse out there.

From what I've seen, the Maxwell's frequency response is astonishingly close to 2018 Harman Curve. But that's a whole other can of worms.

Audeze Maxwells are breaking the wall between the gaming and audiophile world!

I'd be curious to hear your thoughts on the Hifiman - I recently tried the Organic and LCD-X and liked them both but didn't get to try mixing on them - The Ananda nano were also great for fast transients and punch with a more mono sound. Testing is very hard but a few things were obvious - the organics treble presence - the ananda's lack of soundstage but obvious transients - the X's warmer thicker sound. Do the 650 EQ well or is there distortion - they'd need a big harman sub bass shelf for me. Is the 650 quite a slow / relaxed headphone? I've found sonarworks and EQ can sometimes make headphones sound awful.

I was bought a tons of cans. From Sennheiser to Audeze... You mentioned you enjoyed "Maxwell" the most out from the box. So, this is why I my trusty M50X with me. It's not the best in details and over analyzing stuff, but they deliver the tone, the bass accury what makes my music always fly to the top 10 on the charts. By the way, it's all about preferences and taste. Thanks for the beautiful video.

I have the mm-500s. Love em!!

Great review Ian, agree with you on the LCD-X, I use them myself but with individual calibration that Sonorworks created for me. Without that, I can’t use them, I wouldn’t even listen to music on them. With the calibration I find they are clean, neutral and have a great frequency response. My work means I’m often on the road, so being able to take the room with me is very beneficial.

I've tried most quality headphones for mastering and the ones I like best are the Audeze LCD-4z. They sound most like an expensive monitor system in a mastering studio. But as with most others, they need an eq adjustment as well. And just as important as a good pair of the headphones themselves is a good headphone amp/DAC.

the thing with eq compensation is also, that it is a bit more cumbersome to just listen to music. sienna offers a system wide application, but not all correction software do that. and you always have to do this, if you want the kind of sound you can rely on. on the lcd-x i now try to get to know both sonic footprints. the one that is corrected with sienna is the one I work with, the uncorrected one is more relaxed and for "easy listening", which is another check for my masters from the consumer perspective. so for me it somehow turned into a benefit.

Thanks Ian. More on Dolby Atmos mixing please.

Explains the brighter sounding masters i've exported while using the LCD-Xs exclusively ^^

I agree 100% on mm-500... it's an incredible pair of headphones

Eq-ing (or calibrating) headphones can really change their sound dramatically. I recently got into it when I bought a pair of Hifiman Sundara, just for listening to music or movies, not mastering. I was at first very unimpressed with them comparing them to my old Audeze LCD-2, but then I thought let's try the EQ settings that everybody is talking about (there are people out there measuring headphones and creating EQ curves to get them closest to the Harman-curve). Well, after Eq-ing the Sundaras, they became a totally different headphone! The best bass I have ever heard on a headphone, they are great for movies or electronic music. Then I EQ-ed the Audeze LCD-2 as well and boy did they get better! There is no way I am ever going to listen to un-EQ'ed heaphones again, you can literally make them into a completely different product! If you told me in a blind test the EQ'ed LCD-2 are a different model that is double the price, I'd say yeah, that sounds fair! Same with the Sundaras. I wouldn't have kept them without EQ, but with EQ they're my go-to for watching movies now.

HD650 til my last breath! 🙂

I agree about the LCD-Xs. However, I use the HD600s for judging the mids that the Audeze lack. Everything else sounds great. So I use both for mastering and get great results. I have a great sounding room with great speakers but I can get very good results with the combination of those two. I have Sonarworks but I hate what it does to imaging and phase particularly if you use more than about 30% of its effect

I use LCD-5's and theyre just incredible!

Great review there Ian!

Great video and perspective! I’d love to see a conversation with yourself and @MasteringExplained as they master exclusively on HD 600 headphones. I mix exclusively on headphones and I’ve ran the gamut of what’s out there and I keep coming back to my HD 650.

I've used a set of Meze planar headphones often. There's benefits and drawbacks (most you've touched on). I mainly use a set of full range speakers in a properly treated room, but headphones, if your ears are trained up to them, can work. For me, they're priceless when mastering in a hotel room, for example.

I am no sound engineer, merely a hobbyist, but you couldn't pry my HD650s even from my cold, dead hands. I've had them for nearly 20 years now. I hope they will last another 20.

NICE CONTENT. agree with you about Jens's

Sat with a cheeseboard and a glass of port listening to two pros chatting. What a wonderful interview and some great advice Ken. Top gentleman to boot. Regarding the question Ian. When I'm mixing I ask myself 'is this ready for mastering?' I wouldn't know the answer to that had I not completed the mastering course and mastered many tracks. 100% yes from me.

Bright side mix seems a bit "safe" sounding and tame whereas Dark side mix sounds like the Peter Gabriel records I expect. Much more dynamic and keeps the interest and ear candy throughout. Nice video Ian !!

It agree 100%. It actually makes sense to teach the basics of mastering first to audio students.

A verry GEM of a interview, allot of great insight and info. Bless

Great interview, a great insight into an absolute craftsman and his techniques.

Hey all you normalized guys.

The discussion about LUFS will never end as long as it is continuously neglected in the discussions, also in this video, for whom the music is made for. Is it made for the artist, or for the sound engineer, or for the audience? And of course, there exist mayor differences in the answers to this question, having to result in mayor differences about what to technically and audibly optimize a song for. Millions of music purchasing youngsters do not equal hundreds of elderly audiophiles. With other words, without taking into account which genre is listened to in which situation and space, and how many streams are sold for the particular groups and thus how much money is moved by a song, the comparison will not convince others to not emphasize highLUFS/lowDynamics. HighLUFS/lowDynamics is preferred by the masses not because they wouldn't be educated listeners, as many times dismissively argued, but because the masses listening to music is doing so in environments with a lot of distractions and rivaling sounds. Isn't the most likely music listening situation nowadays to have a cheap smart phone speaker or boom box or shared headphones running, listening with a lot of background noise, like at the schoolyard, populated public place, workshop, bus, kitchen, video gaming, traffic, a party? Dynamics get lost in that shuffle and are not wished. In a calm listening environment instead, I assume the mass audience to consume movies nowadays. But not music so much anymore. Accordingly you will observe that soundtracks do not push towards high LUFS on costs of low dynamics. But music has to do so because of the rivaling environment it is listened to it. HighLUFS/lowDynamics music, not soundtracks, may arrive normalized from the streaming platform, many times cached locally for making most out of restricted data plans, but in the end, how ever it was delivered, the volume for the little speakers becomes cranked up to the maximum and the music shall stay constantly audible instead of apparently disappearing for parts of the song. Place a cheaper smartphone on the table of a crowded schoolyard, or in a workshop with running machines, then record with an omni mic what you can still listen to in this real world situation, and use these recordings for a comparison. Of course, the judgement about LUFS and LRA will be much different, now. Metallica, in my opinion nowadays a heaviest business interested band, did not publish their recent highLUFS/lowDynamics albums without carefully having thought about it. Sound engineers listening to the mix or master on their smartphone, boom box or car speakers, but indeed concentrating on what they hear, do still not listen to the tracks like big part of the audience will (have to) listen. This transfer test therefore often lacks to come out fine. Unless your target audience isn't the masses, for judging about how your final tracks transfer to the masses listen to them walking around at a schoolyard or hitching a ride in the metro. Recent Metallica tracks will blast nicely in those environments - and sell better as if mastered to levels from 30 years ago.

So dear Ian, if you were mastering both of that, how can you be proud of that 8DBs "shit" you've created? Why didn't you master this song properly, with good quality and good dynamic?

Mode calc, useful already, thanks. I'm about to convert the top floor of my barn.

Wish busters got a bit more attention