Waves NX vs Redline Monitor

[labman]

Hey there. Have any of you folks compared these two? Redline monitor has lived on our headphone busses since it first came out. Am wondering if the NX has anything better to offer.

I also have Flux HEAR but have never used it for that purpose. So I would also be interested in hearing comparisons with that.

[michkhol]

I have both and I must say I never liked the Redline Monitor. I tried it several times and it was not convincing enough. The NX is much better to _my_ taste. I never used their head tracking feature since I don't have a camera, cannot comment on that.

[bayswater]

Were these two actually meant to do the same thing? I though Red Line was supposed to deliver a stereo image the same as a pair of monitors, while NX emulates surround in headphones.

[jloeb]

I think there is a great deal to recommend NX and, in fact, I think it's one of the more exciting plugs to come out in a while. Waves fully answered the question of what it is that makes monitoring on physical speakers valuable and credibly enabled that on cans with a breakthrough remix of existing techniques.

The basic (video cam) face recognition and head tracking works really well assuming you're not in the dark, and the full value of monitors for mix assessment is lent to good headphones - i.e., not just panning/stereo image, phase coherence and some cursory bass level estimation, as "fixed" simulation solutions like Redline and CanOpener provide, but robust portability evaluation, which has additionally to do with being able to hear variations in the above and in frequency response just by moving your head around. It really helps when you have to mix on cans, and I like it.

[jloeb]

Were these two actually meant to do the same thing? I though Red Line was supposed to deliver a stereo image the same as a pair of monitors, while NX emulates surround in headphones.

No, NX is/has been all about 3D simulation of stereo monitoring (until this morning, in fact, when they added 7.1 surround mode capability).

[Shooshie]

Were these two actually meant to do the same thing? I though Red Line was supposed to deliver a stereo image the same as a pair of monitors, while NX emulates surround in headphones.

No, NX is/has been all about 3D simulation of stereo monitoring (until this morning, in fact, when they added 7.1 surround mode capability).

I am pretty sure it does stereo monitoring, but gives the impression of the 3-D space in which you listen to those monitors, which is consistent with what jloeb said. It may also do 5.1 and 7.1, but I never really pay attention to that, since I probably will never mix that way.

[bayswater]

Yes, if you only have two channels, L and R, it would pretty much have to emulate a stereo image in a 3D space, and it could be very useful for that. But that doesn't seem to be the feature that Waves has in mind when promoting it. Rather, it's a way of doing surround mixes without a surround monitor setup.

[Babz]

I have Waves NX but don't see the appeal of the head-tracking part of it. One of the biggest problems with mixing with speakers is that things sound different in different parts of the room. I am used to staying in a certain spot when mixing. One of the appeals about mixing on headphones for me is I don't have to worry about moving off axis from the sweet spot for the speakers. Why would I want to model and reintroduce something I try to avoid?

Babz

[Shooshie]

I have Waves NX but don't see the appeal of the head-tracking part of it. One of the biggest problems with mixing with speakers is that things sound different in different parts of the room. I am used to staying in a certain spot when mixing. One of the appeals about mixing on headphones for me is I don't have to worry about moving off axis from the sweet spot for the speakers. Why would I want to model and reintroduce something I try to avoid?

Babz

It's not going to change what you hear when you move your head, is it? If so, I didn't see that demo.

If I were to buy NX, I'd merely use it to set up a decent L/R mix such that I hear both speakers with both ears, as with real monitors. If I could get it to sound pretty much like the real thing, I'd be happy with it, no matter what ELSE it can do! And I'm pretty sure it'll do that much for me. They demo that in the videos.

Shooshie

[bayswater]

I have Waves NX but don't see the appeal of the head-tracking part of it. One of the biggest problems with mixing with speakers is that things sound different in different parts of the room. I am used to staying in a certain spot when mixing. One of the appeals about mixing on headphones for me is I don't have to worry about moving off axis from the sweet spot for the speakers. Why would I want to model and reintroduce something I try to avoid?

Babz

It's not going to change what you hear when you move your head, is it? If so, I didn't see that demo.

If I were to buy NX, I'd merely use it to set up a decent L/R mix such that I hear both speakers with both ears, as with real monitors. If I could get it to sound pretty much like the real thing, I'd be happy with it, no matter what ELSE it can do! And I'm pretty sure it'll do that much for me. They demo that in the videos.

Shooshie

I wondered the same thing. What is the point of tracking head movement? I assume it does make a change to what you hear -- otherwise why track it?

I suppose with surround, there is a tendency to move your head in the direction of a sudden sound happening behind you, so maybe there is a reason to emulate what you hear if you do that. As well, it shows how clever the people at Waves are.

[Babz]

Surround. Yes, I can see the appeal there. Haven't tried it with surround yet.

B.

[jloeb]

I feel like there's a misunderstanding of this plugin that is exacerbated by Waves' abysmal ad campaign for it, which has consisted of a video "teaser" with bro clones flying around in a laundromat like some sort of slacker tinkerbells (seriously - if you haven't checked it out yet: don't!), and vague explanatory videos with no sound examples.

The main point of NX is not surround. Waves is not advertising it as such. For sure, NX is a neat way to mix in surround format when you have only headphones; but if you take it as being primarily about that, then you risk missing most of what's special about this plug.

There's no reason at all, for example, why fixed monitor sim plugs (where you can't move your head and hear any change) like CanOpener and Redline Monitor can't model surround: The sound will appear to come from behind you or hard left/right etc. Sure, you can't move your head virtually in relation to the surround speakers but, so what? You can't do that with virtual stereo monitoring either. HRTF in stereo is an ancient technique. WaveArts' Panorama plug is over 10 years old. It, and plugs like it, can accurately place sound sources behind, above, beside you etc. (http://wavearts.com/products/plugins/panorama/) Can't move your head and hear a change. Again, so what?

The "so what" is the part that the Waves ladies & gents are hypothesizing is the real answer to why good physical monitors in a good room make gauging translation of mixes to other systems easier. (Not stereo imaging; fixed sims have that covered.) Translation to your car stereo, the boombox in the corner, etc.

It's exactly the perceived changes in frequency response and phase when you move your head around that enables this. When plotted out, those changes are quite drastic. When you are in a room w/speakers, you move, and those constant changes, even ones you perceive as subtle, allow you to build up an amalgamated impression of your mix that is actually the result of hearing it over time with vastly different frequency response curves. It's that integration of perceptions that make mixing in that environment more reliable in terms of other systems.

You still need to be able to return to zero of course, to have a fixed reference point for all this wandering, and that's why good full range transducers and familiarity with the room matters, and why the "sweet spot" exists.

With deep respect to Shoosh and Babz: try the head tracker. See what you think. You can always turn head tracking off. If you don't find mixing in phones easier with it on, then I'll eat my shorts.

[labman]

I have NX and tracker coming in. Will try it out.

[jingobelt]

I feel like there's a misunderstanding of this plugin that is exacerbated by Waves' abysmal ad campaign for it, which has consisted of a video "teaser" with bro clones flying around in a laundromat like some sort of slacker tinkerbells (seriously - if you haven't checked it out yet: don't!), and vague explanatory videos with no sound examples.

The main point of NX is not surround. Waves is not advertising it as such. For sure, NX is a neat way to mix in surround format when you have only headphones; but if you take it as being primarily about that, then you risk missing most of what's special about this plug.

There's no reason at all, for example, why fixed monitor sim plugs (where you can't move your head and hear any change) like CanOpener and Redline Monitor can't model surround: The sound will appear to come from behind you or hard left/right etc. Sure, you can't move your head virtually in relation to the surround speakers but, so what? You can't do that with virtual stereo monitoring either. HRTF in stereo is an ancient technique. WaveArts' Panorama plug is over 10 years old. It, and plugs like it, can accurately place sound sources behind, above, beside you etc. (http://wavearts.com/products/plugins/panorama/) Can't move your head and hear a change. Again, so what?

The "so what" is the part that the Waves ladies & gents are hypothesizing is the real answer to why good physical monitors in a good room make gauging translation of mixes to other systems easier. (Not stereo imaging; fixed sims have that covered.) Translation to your car stereo, the boombox in the corner, etc.

It's exactly the perceived changes in frequency response and phase when you move your head around that enables this. When plotted out, those changes are quite drastic. When you are in a room w/speakers, you move, and those constant changes, even ones you perceive as subtle, allow you to build up an amalgamated impression of your mix that is actually the result of hearing it over time with vastly different frequency response curves. It's that integration of perceptions that make mixing in that environment more reliable in terms of other systems.

You still need to be able to return to zero of course, to have a fixed reference point for all this wandering, and that's why good full range transducers and familiarity with the room matters, and why the "sweet spot" exists.

With deep respect to Shoosh and Babz: try the head tracker. See what you think. You can always turn head tracking off. If you don't find mixing in phones easier with it on, then I'll eat my shorts.

still have that shorts?

[James Steele]

Seven years later. It lives!! I have Slate VSX now. Like it a lot!