Best way to setup monitors?

W

Will_R

Bass player, apparently
Just wondering what the recommended way of setting up some active monitors would be?

Should i leave the volume on both speakers cranked to the full? (+6dB), Leave it at +0db or have it lower than that?

Was thinking having them at either +0db or +6db would make sense, and then just control the volume by the volume control on the front of my firepod?
 
Keep 'em cranked unless it gets so loud you might damage something by accident. Or set them so the volume is at a good level when you have your Firepod volume at unity.
 
Im still kind of new to all this, how do you mean unity volume?

Cheers for the reply!
 
"unity" gain/volume is when the signal coming in to the device, is the same level or volume as the signal going out.

I don't have a Firepod but I'd assume his comment meant "+0db" (or equalivalant) on the Firepod, and then to set the volume on the monitors to the loudest/most comfortable level you'd mix at. This way you're never pushing the inputs of the monitors.
 
Ah right, i thought that would be the case.

Cheers.

I didnt think the firepod had anything marking the volumes on the master volume, but i just had a closer look and it goes from -80 to 0 .

I think i'll go with keeping the monitors cranked and controlling with the firepod volume. Maybe not the best way to do it, but saves from having to set two seperate volume controls :)
 
Placement isnt a problem, it was just wondering how other people set the volumes.

It's just a small home recording setup based around one of these:

375557.jpg


The monitors are on the top shelf, on either side of the computer monitor. They are at ear level, and the distance between the monitors is the same as the distance between me and the monitors (basically forming an equilateral triangle, well, more or less).

I dont have any isolation for them yet, but will sort that at some point, tho they do have thier own thick rubber sheet on the bottom :) .
 
Will_R said:
Placement isnt a problem, it was just wondering how other people set the volumes.
.
Click to expand...

I asked this and posters said go 85db or so, thats where the freqs are supposedly equal (science...)

so then the method to set this volume is a Radio Shack db meter or the like.
it measures decibels. There's many other methods, software can do it now with a mic plugged in.... I think the Radio Shack DB meter is the most common. Hold it at ear level...you can kind of check your "space to move around" too.....its just a tool to help setup things and quantify a change.
 
i don't think he was so much asking the proper monitoring level, as much as he was what method to use to control the volume...but good call on the 85db.

personally, i only have the gain set to about 12 o'clock on my monitors...what i did was run the main outs from my board into the monitors with the master fader @ unity, then i listened to some fairly loud mixes while turning up the monitor gain...as soon as the clip indicators lit up on the monitors, i backed off a hair on the gain, and left it there.

then i switched the output of the mixer from the main outs to the C/R outs...the master fader stays @ 0, and the playback volume is controlled with the C/R volume knob. i figure this will give me maximum volume(when i want it) without clipping the monitors.
 
Interesting, im not quite sure i get the 85dB thing tho, being a man of science i'd like to read up the theory behind it :)

I dont have a dB meter, but will look into getting one, cheers
 
Will_R said:
Interesting, im not quite sure i get the 85dB thing tho, being a man of science i'd like to read up the theory behind it :)

I dont have a dB meter, but will look into getting one, cheers
Click to expand...

The idea is to be able to precisely control monitor gain based on the relative loudness of the music. This method is used extensively in sound for film so that sound levels are consistent from movie to movie and theater to theater. You crank compressed stuff more than unprocessed audiophile or classical tracks. You need an SPL meter, a digital noise or tone file with known level relative to 0 dBFS (available free on the Net) and a precise, stepped attenuator graduated preferably in 1 dB increments with a range of about 20 dB, either stand alone or as part of a monitoring control unit.

Using the RP200 standard, for example, one speaker is driven with a -20 dBFS RMS pink noise file and the gain trim is set so that 0 dB on the attenuator gives an 83 dB SPL, A-weighted, IIRC, at the monitoring location. Once set, the gain trim is left in place and adjustments are made via the stepped attenuator. Settings up around 0 dB on the attenuator would be used for quiet, uncompressed recordings, settings around -6 dB are typical for classic rock albums from 20 or 30 years ago, while newer stuff is so loud that you need to turn down to -10 dB to -12 dB to maintain a consistent monitoring level.

Hope that makes sense.

Cheers,

Otto
 
ofajen said:
The idea is to be able to precisely control monitor gain based on the relative loudness of the music. This method is used extensively in sound for film so that sound levels are consistent from movie to movie and theater to theater.
Click to expand...

can you go a bit more in depth?.. so how does one do this, as the poster asked.

Scenario:
they have a monitor setup and a source of sound....the dewd is sitting there with his finger on the volume slider....wondering how loud is "industry standard"?

and also the little virtual indicators on the recorder are showing volume increases and decreases as the slider's moved...
again, what is the "industry standard" for mixing levels on the board displays?
so the recorded music can be burnt to a CDR at this "industry standard".

so to get both, the speakers & the CDR, at the proper "industry standard" volume.

I like that term "industry standard", ...meaning: average, used in most applications, universally accepted

thanks...
 
1st things 1st, there needs to be a clarification between volume levels...the volume level of the monitor playback is totally independent of the volume level of the mix that resides on tape/hard drive...regardless of what kind of peak or RMS values a mix or track may have, you can adjust the playback to be as loud/quiet as you choose

that being said, there's really no "industry standard" for the loudness of mixes - especially today...that's going to depend on the song/genre/etc...in fact, the standard for today's mixes is "as loud as you can get it"

there's also no defined standard for monitoring levels, but 85db is most widely accepted, because research has shown it to be the level at which the human ear most accurately recognizes bass and treble frequencies.
 
Ironklad Audio said:
there's also no defined standard for monitoring levels, but 85db is most widely accepted, because research has shown it to be the level at which the human ear most accurately recognizes bass and treble frequencies.
Click to expand...

Actually there are precisely defined standards for monitoring levels. I described one in the previous post. However, there isn't just one, and lots of folks who do audio work don't use one at all. Moreover, adoption of a defined monitoring standard in no way relieves you of the responsibility for choosing how "loud" you make your mixes or your "masters". Used consistently, it can make it somewhat easier and more intuitive to achieve the loudness you desire on each project.

Cheers,

Otto
 
well if Will R don't respond I'm wondering a few things....

so monitors we agree are around 85db...

now the volume of the incoming signals is "typically" what?
and what would the Mix levels be?
and what would the Master levels "typically" on the average be?

and then what levels would you guys burn the CDR at...?

can you post actual numbers, in general?
 
COOLCAT said:
can you go a bit more in depth?.. so how does one do this, as the poster asked.
Click to expand...

This is probably more than you want to know, but it covers it pretty well and even has some figures and graphs:

http://www.digido.com/bob-katz/level-practices-part-2-includes-the-k-system.html

BTW, I was wrong in my description of the SMPTE RP200 standard: the -20 dBFS pink noise file is trimmed for a single speaker to produce 83 dB SPL using C-weighted metering, not A-weighted metering. I wasn't sure and guessed wrong in the previous post, rather than looking it up. Hey... lazy happens.

Cheers,

Otto
 
COOLCAT said:
well if Will R don't respond I'm wondering a few things....

so monitors we agree are around 85db...

now the volume of the incoming signals is "typically" what?
and what would the Mix levels be?
and what would the Master levels "typically" on the average be?

and then what levels would you guys burn the CDR at...?

can you post actual numbers, in general?
Click to expand...


If, by levels, you mean digital peak levels, I would hope they wouldn't reach 0 dBFS and beyond that, who cares? RMS levels are more correlated with human perception of loudness, which is what counts.

In practice, what I do is to use actual VU meters in addition to the Roger Nichols free Inspector (K-system meter) plug in. The VU meters do a reasonable job of showing RMS-like levels, as does the plug in.

Assuming that you adjust the monitor gain up for quieter mixes and down for louder mixes, the RMS SPL for forte passages in the music should be fairly consistent from track to track.

However, a quiet piano or guitar solo mix might have RMS levels at -20 dBFS for forte passages, while a classic rock album like Dark Side of the Moon or Joshua Tree will have a lot of tracks with RMS levels around -14 dBFS in the final, mastered version. A lot of newer stuff seems to be more like -6 to -8 dBFS, which is really loud and I'm sure there are now many recordings with -3 dBFS RMS tracks. The term "forte" has no meaning on such a track, since it's all the same loudness!

Even if you want to produce a final product that loud, the mix can still have lower levels and you can experiment in the mastering stage with how far you can crunch it before it falls apart. I tend to keep mixes of my quiet stuff (piano or guitar solo) around -20 dB RMS and my louder stuff between -14 dB and -12 dB. That's the range, depending on how loud it needs to be. Then I beat on them a bit more in the mastering stage. BTW, the better the quality of the input tracks, the more abuse it can generally take.

Question: Is it possible for an audio recording to have an RMS level in excess of 0 dBFS? :eek: Bonus rep points to the first one posting the explanation as to how this can be! :)

Cheers,

Otto
 
ofajen said:
Question: Is it possible for an audio recording to have an RMS level in excess of 0 dBFS? :eek: Bonus rep points to the first one posting the explanation as to how this can be! :)
Click to expand...

No takers, eh? Probably should be posted in Mixing/Mastering... :)

Another way to ask the key question is, why do sine waves show up with the same peak level and RMS level on proper digital audio meters, when mathematically that isn't true?

The answer is that the standards demand it! Sine waves show up with the same value for peak and RMS because the reference value is chosen the same for both measurements to accomplish this.

Even though it isn't mathematically true, this is a good thing, because it gives consistent results and allows you to calibrate your system using a sine wave (or an RMS-calibrated noise file). Put another way, in a band-limited system using a square wave to define levels is a bad idea.



The following is an extract from the International Standard for digital
audio measurements, IEC61606:1997


"3.3.2 Signal level

All digital signal levels in this standard are given in dBFS, defined as
the value of the result obtained from the following equation.

Signal level (dBFS) = 20 log (A/B)

where:
A is the amplitude of the signal whose level is to be determined.
B is the amplitude of a sine wave that corresponds to full scale.

NOTE - Both A and B should use the same method for characterizing
levels,"


Note that both RMS and peak values are referenced to a SINE wave that just reaches full scale up and down.

So, if you use dBFS with RMS measurements then the maximum level you can have is +3.01 dBFS. This level can be achieved with a square wave (or pulse wave) which has only full negative and full positive values. This is because a square wave peaking to full scale has twice the power, or root 2 times the RMS value, of a sine wave peaking to the same value (which happens to be defined as 0 dBFS for both RMS and peak measurements).

Now you know that the absurd is true! So, I'm wondering: has any pop recording achieved an RMS value greater than 0 dBFS? If not, when will we reach that glorious day? :rolleyes:

Cheers,

Otto
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top