How loud do you mix and master at
- Thread starter timboZ
- Start date
mshilarious
Banned
FALKEN said:
That depends on your hearing. 0dBSPL is defined as the lowest level a normal human can hear, most males over the age of twenty will have substantially worse hearing than that. Of course hearing is frequency-dependent, too. But there is a very real possibility of a noise existing at -80dBFS that a teenager can hear on headphones, but a middle-aged engineer would miss monitoring at a calibrated 75dBSPL.
R
RAMI
Guest
Hey guys, this is a very educational thread for a masteringly-challenged person like myself. I, like Dogman, tend to listen to music low. SO i find that I mix at low- to below average volumes. I will listen very low and very loud before I consider a mix done, though.
Excuse my ignorance, but what's all this about "weighted C" and such. First I ever hear of it, and I thought I read everything I can get my hands on...I got to do more reading.
Excuse my ignorance, but what's all this about "weighted C" and such. First I ever hear of it, and I thought I read everything I can get my hands on...I got to do more reading.
SouthSIDE Glen
independentrecording.net
AAAHHHHH!!! It's a sign of the Apocalypse!FALKEN said:
Next thing there'll be a snowball fight in Hell! 
Seriously, though, I took the liberty of looking up that reference I was thinking of in Owsinski's "Mixing Engineer's HandbooK". Page 64 has the relevant quotes from 5 different A-List engineers. Here is the unedited transcript (with apologies to Bobby O. for quoting so extensively here...I hope this actually sells your book):
Don Smith:
I like to listen loud on the big speakers to get started, and occasionaly thereafter, and most of the time at around 90dB. When the mix starts to come together, it comes way down, sometimes barely audible. I turn it down way low and walk around the room to hear everything.
Allen Sides:
Generally speaking, when I put up the mix, I'll put it up at a fairly good level, maybe 105, and set all my track levels and get it punchy and fun sounding. And if I listen loud, it's only for short periods of time. It's rare that I would ever play a track from beginning to end loud. I might listen to 20 seconds or 30 seconds of it here or there, but when I'm actually down to really detailing the balance, I'll monitor at a very modest level. I would say at a level that we could have a conversation and you could hear every word I said.
Ed Seay:
I mix at different levels. I try not to mix too loud because it'll wear you down and fool your perspective. I don't find it extremely valuable to listen loud on big wall monitors very often. The only reason I'll go up there is to check bottom end.
Sometimes it's very valuable to turn things down, but there's and up and down side to both. If you listen too soft, you'll add too much bass. If you listen too loud, you'll turn the lead vocals down too much. What I like to do is make it sound good on all thre unrelated systems, then it's got to relate to the rest of the world.
George Massenberg:
I'll monitor way loud to see what rocks. I'll monitor at a nominal level to get sounds together. Then I'll monitor about 5dB over background noise to hear all the elements into focus. If a mix works at 30dB SPL, 25dB SPL, it'll almost always work a lot louder. If you can hear everything at that low a level, then when you turn it up you'll have a very even balance. That's the way to get everything in the same plane, by listening extremely low.
Guy Snider:
I monitor extremely soft, to the point that assistants have to leave the room. I have a tendancy to pick up nuances at conversation volume. Like if you were in the room talking for any length of time, I'd either ask you to leave, or I'd turn up the volume all the way in the mains until it shut you up because I can't have conversation in the room while I mix.
As you can see, these guys go all over the volume map when they mix, and they all seem to tend to gravitate to much lower volumes than the Fletcher-Munson curve would suggest on paper. It's because their ears are trained for critical listening.
G.
bennychico11
...
Aviel said:
you use an SPL meter...you can buy one from radio shack.
Out of curiosity, a question for FALKEN and the rest who are saying 85dBSPL per channel is too loud...where is your 0 reference point when mixing? Where do you try and keep RMS and peak levels at? Similarly, where are you running pink noise at both RMS and peak levels?
apl
Stand Up Comity
mshilarious said:
0 dBSPL is 20 µPa.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sound_pressure_level
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A-weighting
SouthSIDE Glen
independentrecording.net
I assume I am "the rest"bennychico said:
....I'm not sure what you mean by "zero refrence point when mixing".
As for the rest, when I'm inside the mix massaging the tracks, I'm not tryingto keep my overall levels anywhere; they vary all over the map depending upon how many tracks I have activated, how I'm adjusting envelopes, etc. As far as the raw mixdown, I'll typically give myself between 3 and 6 dBFS peak headroom and let the RMS fall where it falls. By the time I'm done with premastering (assuming I'm not sending it out for real mastering) my mix will peak around -.3dBFS to -0.1dBFS and the RMS will fall where it falls. I'm not one of those who pushes RMS by the numbers; I just massage the mix until it sounds right. For the stuff I typically work on it's rare for the RMS to get above -13.5dBFS and is usuallly more around the -16dBFS to -16.5dBFS range, give or take a dB.
I'm not sure I see the relevance of all that, honestly. What we're talking about here is the amount of juice sent to the loudspeaker, which is totally controlled by the volume control on the loudspeaker's amplifiers, regardless of the strength or dynamics of the source signal. 85dBSPL averages mean >95dBSPL peaks, which are downright LOUD - not to mention dangerous - to anybody who's ears aren't already ruined. Hell, my ears are already old and worn and I do live gigs once or twice a month, and I still find 85dBRMS SPL from nearfields to be loud in extended doses. Even 85dBSPL peaks with, say, 72dBSPL RMS is something I'll put up which in a social situation, but extended periods of it in the studio tends to reduce my sensitivity to detail and frankly tire both me and my ears faster. I gotta swing it back and forth for different mixing tasks.
Now, one thing I will grant is that the cleaner and clearer the tracks, the less fatiguing they'll be at louder volumes; but it's not just a matter of fatigue, it's a matter of sensitivity and personal ear response. My ears just don't work as clearly at 85dBSPL as they do at, say, 75-80 or even less. Massenburg mixes at 5dB SPL above ambient room noise, for goodness sake; and that's in a treated pro studio environment! Because that's how he's wired.
I'd also liketo point out that the reason that 85dB is often cited as the "sweet spot" on the curve, it's because that's where one typically gets the maximum audible bass boost before going into dangerous volume levels. Anything above 85dBSPL is typically considered to be dangerous volume levels for any extended or repeated exposure. 85dB shoud be considered the very top limit of volume for the human ear for anything other than short exposures unless you want to risk permanant damage. It should not be considered "standard operating volume" as many interpret the F/M curve to mean. Add to that the fact that maximum bass boost may not be what one's monitoring chain needs. If one has ears with good bass response combined with a monitor system that's solid in the bass, the bass bosst vs. the treble boost at 85dB could easily be over-weighted to the bass side.
It all depends upon the monitoring chain and the engineer's ears as to what the optimal monitoring level should be. It sould never be sustained *above* 85dBSPL for very long (sustained including 85dBSPL peaks for a sustained period), and if one can get the job done right for less than that, more power to them and the longevity of their ears.
G.
mshilarious
Banned
If we start delving into OSHA limits for SPL exposure, we need to switch over to A-weighting. A lot of energy in the C-weighted measurements used for calibration is bass, which typically is not as damaging at a given level than higher frequencies. The difference in measurement of pink noise between A and C weights is about 3dB, and the OSHA actionable level is eight hours at 90dB-A. I would certainly not recommend anyone monitor at 93dB-C for anything other than a very brief loudness test.
bennychico11
...
Glen-
Basically what I was trying to figure out is if people who are running their RMS pink noise at a certain level (-20, -18, -14, -320...whatever) are calling that RMS point their 0VU level. There are a lot of pink noise reference files on the net that are created for film people that are calibrated at -20dBFS with peaks up around -12. Now if someone doing music uses that to calibrate their monitors to 85dBFS then start mixing with -14dBFS as their 0VU (or where they try and keep their RMS levels at)...then they've essentially just recalibrated their monitors up another 6dB. And it'll just get worse if people start pushing it even closer to the -.01dBFS mark that so many strive to hit.
In the broadcast side of things, as you might now, I treat -20dBFS RMS as 0VU and keep everything hovering around there with the mix...taming the peaks accordingly. I played around with some commercial CDs today (Foo Fighters was one of them) and of course this was something that was slammed to the ceiling (it still amazes me when I view those songs in waveform view...ouch). Turning it down so the RMS was around -20dBFS in the medium parts and peaked a bit above in the louder parts sounding pretty decent for me. And turning it down another 6dB as is recommended by Bob Katz for commercial pop music would make it even easier on the ears.
I think a standard is a good thing. This would especially help programs be able to be moved from studio to studio and still retain that standard. We add a reference tone to the tracks, why shouldn't we denote monitoring levels as well for these instances.
I believe all this goes along with the K-System Proposal in metering by using a moveable 0VU reference (or SPL point) on the meter that is dependent on the program material. And relating to that, this is another Bob Katz quote that I find interesting:
Doing further reading he also recommends using narrow band pink noise set at 500-2kHz to help avoid room issues...I'm gonna test that tomorrow to see what results it yields in my room.
Basically I think their should be a standard. I agree that you maybe don't have to use 85dBSPL as the standard, but picking one and saying "this is where the bulk of my mixing is going to be at" will help create constant mixes. And letting other engineers at other studios know where your monitoring level is at will help them adjust accordingly...much like the reference tone on tape.
Basically what I was trying to figure out is if people who are running their RMS pink noise at a certain level (-20, -18, -14, -320...whatever) are calling that RMS point their 0VU level. There are a lot of pink noise reference files on the net that are created for film people that are calibrated at -20dBFS with peaks up around -12. Now if someone doing music uses that to calibrate their monitors to 85dBFS then start mixing with -14dBFS as their 0VU (or where they try and keep their RMS levels at)...then they've essentially just recalibrated their monitors up another 6dB. And it'll just get worse if people start pushing it even closer to the -.01dBFS mark that so many strive to hit.
In the broadcast side of things, as you might now, I treat -20dBFS RMS as 0VU and keep everything hovering around there with the mix...taming the peaks accordingly. I played around with some commercial CDs today (Foo Fighters was one of them) and of course this was something that was slammed to the ceiling (it still amazes me when I view those songs in waveform view...ouch). Turning it down so the RMS was around -20dBFS in the medium parts and peaked a bit above in the louder parts sounding pretty decent for me. And turning it down another 6dB as is recommended by Bob Katz for commercial pop music would make it even easier on the ears.
I think a standard is a good thing. This would especially help programs be able to be moved from studio to studio and still retain that standard. We add a reference tone to the tracks, why shouldn't we denote monitoring levels as well for these instances.
I believe all this goes along with the K-System Proposal in metering by using a moveable 0VU reference (or SPL point) on the meter that is dependent on the program material. And relating to that, this is another Bob Katz quote that I find interesting:
Doing further reading he also recommends using narrow band pink noise set at 500-2kHz to help avoid room issues...I'm gonna test that tomorrow to see what results it yields in my room.
Basically I think their should be a standard. I agree that you maybe don't have to use 85dBSPL as the standard, but picking one and saying "this is where the bulk of my mixing is going to be at" will help create constant mixes. And letting other engineers at other studios know where your monitoring level is at will help them adjust accordingly...much like the reference tone on tape.
Last edited:
SouthSIDE Glen
independentrecording.net
Boy, Ben, to be honest, I never bother delving into it that deeply. I just don't remember what flavor of pink noise I used back then (I have since changed computers and hard drives because of a crash and all my original files were lost), and frankly couldn't even tell you for sure if I knew back then.bennychico11 said:
As much respect as I have for you (which you know I do) and the ever-specification-spewing Bob Katz, I honestly think that a "standard monitoring volume" is ridiculous. There is absolutely no reason for one that I can see, and to assign one would actually be doing the industry a disservice. Tell George Massenberg that he should monitor at a certian volume and leave it there when mixing and he'll tell you blow it out your ass. And when push comes to shove, so will Bob Katz, no matter what numbers he pundits out.
Specifications for how to measure audio volumes are in order, sure. So are guidelines like Fletcher-Munson. Savety boundaries need to be explained. Etc. We're not operating in a vacuum here, there are some relavant numbers and physics to deal with, for sure.
But to tell an engineer that he should be monitoring at a certain standard level is like telling a painter that he should only paint under a certain type of light bulb. Everybody's ears are different and perform differently under different circumstances. Even when the ears stay the same, there are differences; I don't necessarily want or - or should- mix at the exact same volume today as I did yesterday. To say that there's one standard that applies best to everybody is unrealistic.
The engineer's job is to create a great-sounding mix. He has only one primary tool for doing that; his ears. He needs to do whatever his ears need him to do to create that mix. If that means running the monitors at around 85dB only 30% of the time, none of the time, or all of the time, then so be it. Let him use the volume he need to get the job done. If I had to operate my desk at 85dB for more than a few hours a day, I'd be finding another line of work so quickly it would make your head spin. For one simple reason; it's just too damn loud for my ears to take for that long.
Next we'll be telling the listener what volume they should be listening at as well?
G.
sweetnubs
New member
everything is caliberated so optiminization is of the amp/speaker coalition in relitivization to the cosolectomy is 80db see-waited while bringing on da pink noize fools. That is just normal rockin' levels bros, lots of times i listen much lower and sometimes it take it higher. Sometimes i go into the other room and listen to the jams too, easier to check bass levels for me and even for me too!
FALKEN
*************************
I read bob katz white paper and it was awesome. But I still don't get the whole point of mixing at 83 db for sound when most listeners will be listening much lower than that. Also, he said he had 1,000 people in the room when they did the test, in which 996 engineers agreed that 83 db sounded like the right volume. I would assume that in my mixing room, which does not have 1,000 people in it, 83 db would be perceived as much louder than in his experiment. so, although I agree with the idea of standardization, I'm still sort of confused why 83 db was chosen. I still think its loud.
bennychico11
...
well, that's like saying why mix with great monitors if people are just going to be listening to the CD in their car. Ideally it would be great to get the consumer to listen back with similar monitoring volume, room conditions and hardware setup as we do. That way what is put down on tape by the mix engineer is exactly what is heard by the consumer.
I think the 83dBSPL was chosen because it was found that the human ear hears the most frequencies at equal amplitudes at that level. A standardization I think will also help multiple CDs sound the same volume wise across the board. There will be no need for brick wall limiting CDs just to maximize volume because the consumer will just keep their volume knob at one spot.
Here's another explanation by Katz in how to properly calibrate the monitors at 83/85dBSPL and why he agrees that it IS way too hot for most stuff. It looks like he considers the 83dBSPL limit as an UPPER limit for mostly dynamic pieces. Which is why Dolby, SMPTE and THX were the ones to standardize it...for movies.
Last edited:
mshilarious
Banned
bennychico11 said:
It is an upper limit. In fact the 83 is a single-speaker reading, so the combined is 86 dB. And since program material *should* be quieter than pink noise, the actual listening level will be significantly less than 85dB.
I don't get Katz' calibration points though. -8 would be -20dbRMS (because pink noise is -12dBRMS on my meters), but I think with the -8 and -6 he intended to reference -14 and -12, which corresponds to a noise level of -6dBRMS, which is more typical of white than pink noise. But he did specify using his noise files, so maybe the difference is there
Edit: no, I think I got that backwards. Never mind
Last edited:
bennychico11
...
well, his noise files are -20dBFS RMS
so I understood it as all the way to -12dB down from there
so I understood it as all the way to -12dB down from there
sweetnubs
New member
jesus christ y'all are too uptight about this shit. Just listen mostly in the fletcher-munson zone, it's good to double-check at quieter and louder volumes also and on different playback systems and on a different set of monitors and against a reference cd or two. I'd worry more the frequency response of the room you are monitoring than nitpicking between 80 and 83db. Sheesh!