Albert pretty much hit the nail on the head, just as he usually does.
As mentioned, this will vary from artist to artist, producer to producer and engineer to engineer. I know of one specific band that used to do their final mix by listening to it on cassette via generic headphones and a Walkman. If it didn't sound like what they wanted when listening in that manner, they would re-mix and go from there until they got what they wanted. Quite honestly, i always thought that the finished product was not very good even though i liked the bands' music quite a bit.
I know of another band that used to do their final mixes using a bunch of crappy old car stereo speakers and listen to those when doing their final mix. They assumed that if they could get their recordings to sound good using what would represent a "junky" car stereo, it would sound even better with high quality equipment. Believe it or not, this band was very successful and their recordings really didn't sound that bad either.
The problem with using systems like the above is that the recording becomes "tainted" with the equalization and changes to the mix required to overcome the limitations of the low resolution system. For instance, mixing and EQ'ing a disc using speakers with very little bass output would require adding a ton of bottom end to the recording to get it to sound well balanced. If the band was looking for a "heavy" or "powerful" sound, they might throw in even more bottom end than what it would take to make a balanced sound on such a system. When those of us that have high resolution systems that are capable of full range reproduction listen to such a recording, it comes across as being bloated and muddy sounding. The same thing occurs when they use treble deficient systems to mix the recordings i.e. they end up too "hot" sounding on a decent system.
There is the opposite approach also. Many producers / engineers know that most systems are not capable of a lot of bottom end or extreme treble, so they try to cram as much info into the midrange as possible. As such, they end up with a recording that sounds very forward and lacking at the frequency extremes.
Now you know why some recordings sound the way that they do. Much of what we hear as a finished product has to do with a lack of resolution in the studio with a bit of it having to do with the personal tastes of the artist, engineer and producer. Combining the two ( non-linear monitor system with exagerated personal tastes ) can really produce some horrid results. Either way, most all of it could sound a LOT better if you ask me : ) Sean
>
As mentioned, this will vary from artist to artist, producer to producer and engineer to engineer. I know of one specific band that used to do their final mix by listening to it on cassette via generic headphones and a Walkman. If it didn't sound like what they wanted when listening in that manner, they would re-mix and go from there until they got what they wanted. Quite honestly, i always thought that the finished product was not very good even though i liked the bands' music quite a bit.
I know of another band that used to do their final mixes using a bunch of crappy old car stereo speakers and listen to those when doing their final mix. They assumed that if they could get their recordings to sound good using what would represent a "junky" car stereo, it would sound even better with high quality equipment. Believe it or not, this band was very successful and their recordings really didn't sound that bad either.
The problem with using systems like the above is that the recording becomes "tainted" with the equalization and changes to the mix required to overcome the limitations of the low resolution system. For instance, mixing and EQ'ing a disc using speakers with very little bass output would require adding a ton of bottom end to the recording to get it to sound well balanced. If the band was looking for a "heavy" or "powerful" sound, they might throw in even more bottom end than what it would take to make a balanced sound on such a system. When those of us that have high resolution systems that are capable of full range reproduction listen to such a recording, it comes across as being bloated and muddy sounding. The same thing occurs when they use treble deficient systems to mix the recordings i.e. they end up too "hot" sounding on a decent system.
There is the opposite approach also. Many producers / engineers know that most systems are not capable of a lot of bottom end or extreme treble, so they try to cram as much info into the midrange as possible. As such, they end up with a recording that sounds very forward and lacking at the frequency extremes.
Now you know why some recordings sound the way that they do. Much of what we hear as a finished product has to do with a lack of resolution in the studio with a bit of it having to do with the personal tastes of the artist, engineer and producer. Combining the two ( non-linear monitor system with exagerated personal tastes ) can really produce some horrid results. Either way, most all of it could sound a LOT better if you ask me : ) Sean
>