Please explain your logic.
As it's mainly only studios that have perfect balance and the rest of the spaces where people listen to music have far from perfect acoustics (i.e. in the car, livingroom,bedroom,kitchen,mp3 player etc), please explain how mixing in a flat environment helps.
As I said before, the mixing environment need not be pure. It is more important to be used to to the space that you mix in.
Most producers/engineers who have mixed in a pure environment employ cross referencing in two ways.
1. They use a recording already produced to compare the new mix with and attempt to match them up. Experience with your mixing environment whether pure or not reduces the necessity to have to do this.
2. They take mixes into less than perfect spaces (all the ones listed before), listen to them and then go back into the pure environment and make adjustments! Again, experience reduces the need to have to do this.
Please use your logic to explain these steps.
Another point is that everybodies hearing is different. One person is more responsive in different frequencies than another person.
The shape of a persons ear influences the sound. Use your logic to test that by moving your outer ear around. So, even in a perfect space with perfect monitoring, everyone hears the same thing differently anyway.
The next point is that you actually need to be experienced in a flat space to mix well in there. You have to know how a good mix sounds in a flat space before you can produce a good mix in there.
So it's more important to know how a good mix sounds in YOUR space than how a good mix sounds in a PERFECT space. I'm afraid thats the logic of the matter.
The only benefit of learning to mix in a perfect space is that after experience you can go and mix in other perfect spaces without having to learn them. It's more of a standard than something thats essential.
And for the record, there is nothing you can tell me about Bob Katz. I'm sure he would fully agree with what I'm saying and I am damn certain he could do a great mix on a ghetto blaster if he wanted to.
Bob Katz teaches the standard and he is an expert.
Much like someone teaches you standard tuning on the guitar.
This does not mean that it is the only tuning that can be used to make music. It just creates a level playing field much like the perfect space.
"This is the WORST advice I've ever heard about an 808 kick. Cut below 30-40hz. Boost at 100-160hz for more attack. Cutting at 80hz gets rid of your boom. The whole reason for the 808.
Plus, not all 808's are clean. My favorite sounding 808's were filled with static and dirt. But they sound the thickest so I used x-noise on them to clean them up then some really carefull eq-ing to really tighten up the sounds. The result. I have the cleanest, thickest, tightest, and most rediculous sounding 808's ever. Nothing touches them. Soon will be offered in Refill format as well as wav format for FL Studio."
Surely sir, it depends on what kind of music you are making and what sound you are going for?
What I gave was an example of what I may do in a mix, not a hard and fast rule. It's a bit crass of you to try to suggest that your way is the only way, dont' you think?
Now, well done for producing your PERFECT sounding kicks but as most of us know it's useless wasting time on making things sound excellent on their own, it's how they sound in the mix that counts. What you cut and boost on a kick will depend largely on where you decide to sit the bass. For this reason, I don't think there will be much of a market for your opinion of a perfect kick, not when people can easily get hold of a pure 808 kick. That way they can decide what sounds perfect in their own mix.
People are more likely to take ADVICE than they are to listen to someone proclaiming that they have the worlds best kicks regardless of the mix. lol.
.... I recently put out a sample based product with an 808 sampled into an MPC60... The result.... well phat of course! See my sig below...
