fletcher-munson curve

I find that around 74dB SPL is just right, my room has too many problems to mix at 90dB SPL and actually sound good, I would need a far bigger space for that.
 
Btyre2013 said:
I find that around 74dB SPL is just right, my room has too many problems to mix at 90dB SPL and actually sound good, I would need a far bigger space for that.
Click to expand...

That's another important thing that the Fletcher Munson curves don't tell ya.

To the OP, theoretically, it's better to mix at the 85-90 dB I mentioned, but of course, the room must be taken into consideration. Playing recordings loudly in a poorly treated room will only exacerbate the problems that are present at low volumes. Important thing to note during mixdown.
 
Btyre2013 said:
I find that around 74dB SPL is just right, my room has too many problems to mix at 90dB SPL and actually sound good, I would need a far bigger space for that.
Click to expand...

Yeah. Got it also. Good. Thanks.

I have no idea if my room has issues at 90 db, but because it's on the small side, I'm thinking that less is more, so... mix lower in the knowledge that mixing lower will tend to get me to boost the low end. And crank it from time to time, just to check.

I think I'm more in than I used to be. Yeah, thanks all. I'm grateful.
 
dobro said:
mix lower in the knowledge that mixing lower will tend to get me to boost the low end. And crank it from time to time, just to check.
Click to expand...

Yep. Use different mixing levels to check different things in the mix. For example, louder mixing helps establish that all frequencies are well represented. I find at lower levels useful for establishing the sonic landscape: the placement of instruments within the stereo field and how they relate to each other.
 
I absolutely listen to mixes at lower and higher levels and on multiple monitors. A big part of the process is stil LEARNING your monitors and room. Knowing your system is bass shy or treble heavy so you can compensate. Stuff like that.
 
dobro said:
Yeah, that makes sense if you accept what the guy says about 90 dB being flatter through the frequency range. But if you look at that equal loudness chart, the 90 dB line doesn't seem much flatter to me. In fact, each of the loudness curves seems parallel to all the others. The 90 dB curve doesn't seem any flatter than the 60 dB curve. So why not mix at 60 dB and save your ears, like mixsit says.
Click to expand...

That chart isn't the easiest to read, but there is a huge difference between those levels as for how our ears perceive them.

75 - 85 dB level for monitoring has historically been common for pop music. You can also monitor too low and in that case lows and high freqs will become excessive when played back at high levels by the end listener, and really throw off the mix.

60dB is really on the low side. About 85 dB has become a defacto standard level for mixing. Bob Katz calibrates to 83 dB SPL. Some a few dB lower and some higher, but not by much.

The chart in the video is actually based on modifications by Robinson-Dadson (1956). Most charts you'll see these days are.

But whether we're talking Fltchcer-Munson or Robison-Dadson revisions, the important thing to remember is that the concept led the industry to standardize monitoring volume for audio mixdown so the mix will retain integrity through a range of average end-user listening levels.

Loudness affects everything else people work so hard to get right in a mix.
 
Beck said:
That chart isn't the easiest to read, but there is a huge difference between those levels as for how our ears perceive them.

75 - 85 dB level for monitoring has historically been common for pop music. You can also monitor too low and in that case lows and high freqs will become excessive when played back at high levels by the end listener, and really throw off the mix.

60dB is really on the low side. About 85 dB has become a defacto standard level for mixing. Bob Katz calibrates to 83 dB SPL. Some a few dB lower and some higher, but not by much.

The chart in the video is actually based on modifications by Robinson-Dadson (1956). Most charts you'll see these days are.

But whether we're talking Fltchcer-Munson or Robison-Dadson revisions, the important thing to remember is that the concept led the industry to standardize monitoring volume for audio mixdown so the mix will retain integrity through a range of average end-user listening levels.

Loudness affects everything else people work so hard to get right in a mix.
Click to expand...

That was useful. Thanks.
 
Track Rat said:
I do. I use a ratshack loudness meter to establish I'm roughly 85 dB at the mix position. I've been doing it this way for 20 years (based on the Fletcher-Munson curve).
Click to expand...
dobro said:
Don't you vary the volume when you mix?
Click to expand...
gecko zzed said:
Yep. Use different mixing levels to check different things in the mix. For example, louder mixing helps establish that all frequencies are well represented. I find at lower levels useful for establishing the sonic landscape: the placement of instruments within the stereo field and how they relate to each other.
Click to expand...

Me, too, but only for the last 6 months. I'm learning my new system and room, but one of the first things I did was invest in a SPL meter. I mix at 85, then listen at 65. You can hear "mud" much easier at 85. You can hear balance much easier at 65. I also listen through an 8" set and a 5" set, then take the mix to my living room, car and the Bose system in the guest room.

dobro said:
All that makes sense. As for studio mixing, the only thing I'd think might be significant is knowing that a boost of 2 dB at 3K is going to better perceived than a boost of 2 dB at 70 Hz. But...since I listen to everything carefully in order to get the sound I want, what difference does having that Fletcher-Munson knowledge make?
Click to expand...

Just knowing the information is the difference. Knowing the alphabet, or times tables is basic information. Seeing a chart of them seems overboard, because they are second nature. That's what F/M is. An extreme basic that, when known, becomes a foundation for your mixing technique. It's not something you've got to pound in yer head, just know it and flow it!

dobro said:
That was useful. Thanks.
Click to expand...
Indeed. The standards that studios used in the 80s when I was recording (musician, not tech) seem very lax in today's environment. This is good info.
 
Apart from the response criteria there are two other aspects to running a "calibrated system"

The first was I think mentioned? Levels. That is levels from one piece to another and from day to day*.
My son is especially anal about this! Some 3 years ago he made up a DVD of music for my daughter's 40th birthday party. It took him fekkin' days!
Not only did each song have to move, logically and "artistically" into the next but the levels HAD to be just so!

Secondly there is the matter of personal changes in hearing. If you simply crank things from day to day until they sound "right" your levels and mixes could be all over the shop. Our ears are not only subject to changes due to illness, a cold say, but also their past SPL history. If you have just spent the last 3 hours on a motorway in a Transit you are not going to be in the same listening shape as if you had just rolled out after a good 8 hours at a country hotel!
Having the monitors always at a known SPL tells YOU how YOU are.

The fact that 85ish dBSPL is too loud for many peep's rooms and circumstances was touched on. The idea then is to first calibrate to 85 and then back off to the lower, more manageable level but this should be measured and the point on the controls marked for "85" and say 75dB.

*Freeview telly is dreadful for this! My wife is presently able to do little more than watch TV all day and the variation in dialogue levels twixt Dave, Food, True Entertainment et al compared to the Beeb is startling! And WHAT 'effin eejot thought that the commentary of the instructor in a helicopter (A Chopper is Born. Quest) needed background music???!!!

Dave.
 
In the context of this discussion, TAE started a thread based on this video.



About 27.35 he talks about the benefits of listening to mixes at low volumes. I think it's merely a provocative gambit to generate debate and notoriety. What's your opinion?

(Of course, the guy on the right impressed me so much during the course of the entire interview that I'm going to try out his advice to mix at low volumes and see if he's right.)
 
dobro said:
..About 27.35 he talks about the benefits of listening to mixes at low volumes. I think it's merely a provocative gambit to generate debate and notoriety. What's your opinion?..
Click to expand...
I agree with his 'point 3- about getting a good (alt' perhaps) view of blends and balances.
Of course '1 is a given- easier on the ears.
Low' is similar to the 'from the other room tac, but still hearing the tones direct from the speakers.
 
Trying to understand the "science" is fine, but really, all these stupid youtube tutorials are doing more harm than good. Turn that crap off and just make some mixes.
 
You don't like online video tutorials, but I do, at this stage anyway. They make me think about stuff I either haven't noticed or haven't thought through. That one I linked to convinced me to finally get around to using templates, for example.
 
dobro said:
You don't like online video tutorials, but I do, at this stage anyway. They make me think about stuff I either haven't noticed or haven't thought through. That one I linked to convinced me to finally get around to using templates, for example.
Click to expand...

I think they are great, if I trust the source. There is a lot of good information on Youtube, just finding the good information is the difficult part.
 
Yeah, it's like homerecording.com. There's a lot of crap to wade through for the sake of the good stuff.
 
Amazingly true. I was just talking (writing?, maybe typing?) on another thread about how the acoustic treatment in my room changed everything so much that the new 8's I bought are only used for final mix run through at 90dB (regulated by my trusty RadioSnack spl meter) and I'm back to doing my initial mixes on the old Rokit 5 gen 1s I've got (at 65dB). The lower volume mixing gets things in the right neighborhood and allows me to dial in specific addresses with the loud and get my spectrum corrected. Still working on getting everything working right, but should have some good mixes up soon.

@ Greg: I wish I had the experience you do. Period. Your mixes come off clean and balanced right from the start. I've got to get to where I'm getting good stuff in, so that my mixing will put some good stuff out. Working on it. In the mean time, getting tips from the "pros" can't hurt too much.
Most pro advice runs along the same lines. 1) fix your room 2) get the best signal and sound you can from the source 3) use less effects better 4) develop your own style and set up templates/presets that get you closer quicker. Sounds simple when you say it fast, but it's a lot more work than it sounds. Still practicing :D
 
I'm not saying that the tutorials are wrong, but shit, do you really need to be repeatedly told to record good sounds? Treat your room? Don't fix it in the mix? I mean, that's stuff that we repeat repeatedly in here, but per person, they shouldn't have to be told over and over. Are people seriously using SPL meters to "dial" their monitors in at an exact db just because some youtube tutorial says so? I don't care who says what, or how legendary pro they are, if they're not in the room with you, how can you actually take something like that seriously? Knock yourself out if it makes you feel better, but the difference between 80 and 90 db isn't really going to make anyone mix better. Mixing makes you mix better.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top