After the listening session

The four monitors all share a common goal, but each came with a distinct personality. What may or may not work best in a given studio environment really depends on what the producer is trying to achieve. After the session, we discussed what the producers thought about the monitors, and what they look for when choosing a pair.I feel like the Focal Shape 40 was the most balanced out of the four. If I were to use the PreSonus R65, I'd probably have to change my approach a bit. But the Shape 40 would work for any kind of music.The Shape 40 was an excellent choice.For a balanced overall sound, the Shape 40 is the clear winner. Still, I personally liked how the PreSonus R65 sounded. The EVE Audio SC205 is also a good one if I needed to make music at a quiet volume.I liked the PreSonus R65's sonic colour. It's great for listening.PreSonus's sound was basically the opposite of the Genelec's.Yes, and that's what made me want it. Because I already use Genelecs, it'd be a good idea to also have a pair of R65s to try and find a sweet spot where it sounds good on both speakers.With Genelec, you could really hear the details. I heard little flaws in my mixes that made me want to go back and fix it.I want to be able to monitor the low end properly.That's one thing that everyone said. It really makes a difference whether you're imagining what your tracks are going to sound like in a club setting or if you're actually hearing how they're going to sound. With the Genelec 8010A, you can work on the mid to high ranges in detail, but for the lower frequencies, you're going to need headphones or subwoofers. On the other hand, the PreSonus R65 had the most robust low end.I usually make music in a bedroom studio-type environment, so I'm not able to hear the low end much. What I usually do, like Wata said, is imagine what it's going to sound like while I'm EQing, and then make adjustments when I'm rehearsing. But if I could monitor the lower frequencies better, I'm probably not going to be surprised by how different the tracks sound in rehearsal.From my experience, compared to foreign engineers and producers, Japanese people tend to like subtle high ends. Maybe I'm just not used to it, but I think some people would be put off by the prominent high range the ribbon tweeters produce.I agree that different cultures have different sonic preferences. German mixes sound serious, British mixes sound wet and American mixes tend to have an emphasis in the mid-range. In that regard, I think a good attack is a sign of a good monitor.One thing I noticed about nearfield monitors today was that they obviously can't reproduce super low frequencies like the large monitors in studios, but their overall sound has a sense of uniformity. So it's good to have a pair of these around.I think that has something to do with club systems becoming more hi-fi. That's making people focus more on the sound texture of mixes rather than arrangements. Plus, with more and more people using DAWs to mix, it's easier to do a lot with textures without getting too blurry like it might with analogue mixers and tape. But on the other hand, because everything is sounding so digital some people are intentionally recording their music on cassettes and analogue consoles to get that blurriness and distortion.In techno, we are seeing more DJs play digitally. When we think about how we can make tracks sound their best in clubs—in my opinion, I think it's best to make tracks sound as clean and clear as possible.And as a counter movement to that sort of clear sound, we're seeing things like raw house where people are intentionally making dance tracks with lo-fi aesthetics. Either way, with consumer Bluetooth speakers improving in quality, I think listeners are paying more attention to sound textures and mix balances than before. So when making music, in addition to mix balance, I think texture is important in building character.Mix balance is obviously important, but as an engineer I also agree that texture is vital. So for somebody that makes music, finding speakers that allow you to hear the texture you are envisioning is pivotal.I've always gone for an analogue aesthetic in my music. But when I go to a gig and the PA console they have is digital, and the other acts are playing high bitrate digital tracks, there's a stark contrast between my analogue-esque sound and their digital sounds. It can sometimes change people's perception of the music. I'm not exactly sure what to do about that.But it's funny how vinyl records sounded great on all four monitors we tested today.I've done an interesting experiment at a DJ gig before. I had a repetitive track that didn't have much going on musically playing on both a CDJ and vinyl, and decided to see which version would keep more people on the dance floor. Turns out, playing the track on vinyl kept more people on the floor than the CDJ.I'm sure the way harmonics sound on vinyl had something to do with that. The fact that each individual sound in the recording is not too separated and kind of sticks together is one of the reasons why vinyl makes the song sound good.I also think it's important to use headphones just to check.But it's hard to make music just on headphones. If I make music solely on headphones it's hard for me to find a good balance for vocals, for instance. Monitors are essential.First, you have to find a texture that you like, something that will be a standard for you. From there, you just have to find monitoring devices that align with that standard. That way, even if you switch between speakers and headphones, you have a reference. If you listen to your music on headphones and monitors and the vocals sound nothing alike, you don't know which to trust. But if you decide that your headphones will provide your standard sound, then all you have to do is seek similar textures in speakers and you'll find a pair that's right for you.