If you are not mixing with a sub...

Unless you're mixing country or jazz, or something that has no sub bass.

And there's a reason 85dB is a good level to mix at. It's important to check a mix a many levels, of course, but at 85dB the human ear registers sounds at each frequency most evenly.
 
If you were using 6" monitors, then you are probably correct. If you were using 8"s, you should have been OK. Personally I prefer 6" with sub, but that is just a preference. If you have stuff with real low bass, like 20Hz, then yeah I would say you need a sub. If your sub is not calibrated, then all bets are off.

Also, if you are not monitoring at 85dB, then I hope you are QC'ing your mixes on headphones, because there might be a lot of low-level crap you can't hear. Then you will realize that the headphone check is largely a waste of time if you monitor at a proper level to begin with.
 
DM1 said:
Unless you're mixing country or jazz, or something that has no sub bass.

And there's a reason 85dB is a good level to mix at. It's important to check a mix a many levels, of course, but at 85dB the human ear registers sounds at each frequency most evenly.
Click to expand...

I know that 85dbs is flat, but mixing at 85dbs for prolonged periods actually leads to hearing damage/loss - counterproductive

another reason 85dbs is bad - your cant hear space details as well. There is just too much room interaction to really be able to judge ambience. Turn it down and hear for yourself (if you still can lol)
 
mshilarious said:
If you were using 6" monitors, then you are probably correct. If you were using 8"s, you should have been OK. Personally I prefer 6" with sub, but that is just a preference. If you have stuff with real low bass, like 20Hz, then yeah I would say you need a sub. If your sub is not calibrated, then all bets are off.

Also, if you are not monitoring at 85dB, then I hope you are QC'ing your mixes on headphones, because there might be a lot of low-level crap you can't hear. Then you will realize that the headphone check is largely a waste of time if you monitor at a proper level to begin with.
Click to expand...

Good post. You dont really have to QC on headphones. you just have to get used to listening at lower levels.
 
CyanJaguar said:
Good post. You dont really have to QC on headphones. you just have to get used to listening at lower levels.
Click to expand...

OK, let's say you have some ugly noise, -80dBFS @ 15 kHz. Let's say you are monitoring at 75 dBSPL, C-weighted. Using Katz' K-14 scale, that means that noise is something like 9 dB. Most adults cannot hear 15kHz at 9dBSPL. Has nothing to do with training, they are physically unable to hear it.

However, as soon as somebody pops that mix in their player and cranks it, there will be that high-pitched squeal, standing out during quiet parts :eek:

Also, the OSHA permissible SPL for 8 hours of exposure is 90dBSPL, A-weighted, not 85dB:

http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_id=9735&p_table=STANDARDS
 
U R 1 FUNNY GUY, CY! :D :D :D :D

I once turned my headlights off by mistake while driving in a rural area on a dark night. I was driving blind.
 
CyanJaguar said:
Then you are mixing blindly. just the humble opinion of someone who learned the hard way.
Click to expand...
Wow. I guess all those Grammy winning albums that were made long befre most studios had subwoofers and had gear half of which was sonically inferior to what your average project studio has today, and yet still sounded leaps and bounds better than 90% of the indie stuff made today with subwoofers were mixing deafly, dumbly and blindly. And they STILL managed to play a mean pinball.

G.
 
SouthSIDE Glen said:
Wow. I guess all those Grammy winning albums that were made long befre most studios had subwoofers and had gear half of which was sonically inferior to what your average project studio has today, and yet still sounded leaps and bounds better than 90% of the indie stuff made today with subwoofers were mixing deafly, dumbly and blindly. And they STILL managed to play a mean pinball.

G.
Click to expand...

which studios. As far back as I know, studios have been using 15 inch mains that reproduce more bass than most consumer subs.
 
CyanJaguar said:
which studios. As far back as I know, studios have been using 15 inch mains that reproduce more bass than most consumer subs.
Click to expand...
Many studios may be equipped with 15" mains, but the use they have gotten out of them over the years is a different story.

First, back in the heyday of Abbey Road and such, the gear was incapable of accurately reproducing subsonics, regardless of the type of transducer they eventually pumped into.

Second, I have read and heard more than one modern "A List" mixing engineer say that their big surface-mounted arrays are more for the benefit of the client than they are the engineer. In other words, they're more for show and gear list than anything else because they prefer to do their mixing thorugh the nearfields only. I'm sorry that I don't have direct quotes or specific names here (this is stuff I read while reading and drinking mocha lattes at my local book store), but the source material was from both Mix magazine and from the "Mixing Engineer's Handbook", and these were true Big Boys.

The baseline is that subwoofers are critical in two mixing situations: if you're mixing for 5.1 or greater, or if you're mixing hip hop meant mainly for dance clubs and car stereos with amps and loudspeakers that weigh more than the car's drive train.

In all other situations, subs are nice to have but far from critical for getting a good mix. Much more critical, and a better spending of budget, IMHO, is to pump the money one would otherwise spend on a sub into better mains instead (or maybe even into better room treatment). If your mains suck, the sub is not going to help with anything but the thump.

G.
 
SouthSIDE Glen said:
Many studios may be equipped with 15" mains, but the use they have gotten out of them over the years is a different story.

First, back in the heyday of Abbey Road and such, the gear was incapable of accurately reproducing subsonics, regardless of the type of transducer they eventually pumped into.

Second, I have read and heard more than one modern "A List" mixing engineer say that their big surface-mounted arrays are more for the benefit of the client than they are the engineer. In other words, they're more for show and gear list than anything else because they prefer to do their mixing thorugh the nearfields only. I'm sorry that I don't have direct quotes or specific names here (this is stuff I read while reading and drinking mocha lattes at my local book store), but the source material was from both Mix magazine and from the "Mixing Engineer's Handbook", and these were true Big Boys.

The baseline is that subwoofers are critical in two mixing situations: if you're mixing for 5.1 or greater, or if you're mixing hip hop meant mainly for dance clubs and car stereos with amps and loudspeakers that weigh more than the car's drive train.

In all other situations, subs are nice to have but far from critical for getting a good mix. Much more critical, and a better spending of budget, IMHO, is to pump the money one would otherwise spend on a sub into better mains instead (or maybe even into better room treatment). If your mains suck, the sub is not going to help with anything but the thump.

G.
Click to expand...

you also overlook the fact that the music back then had less bass in it. music today has more bass so it becomes more critical to be able to hear what is going on down there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top