bouldersoundguy
Well-known member
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.
It's not the flatness, it's the difference between the curves that matters.
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.
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.
It's not the flatness, it's the difference between the curves that matters.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
Don't you vary the volume when you mix?
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.
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?
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.That was useful. Thanks.
I agree with his 'point 3- about getting a good (alt' perhaps) view of blends and balances...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?..
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.
Yeah, it's like homerecording.com. There's a lot of crap to wade through for the sake of the good stuff.