How loud is 85 db?

  • Thread starter Thread starter pennylink
  • Start date Start date
P

pennylink

New member
I read somewhere that the optimum level to mix using near-field monitors is around 85 db.

Assuming that this is correct, and since I have no idea what 85 db sounds like, is there an inexpensive way to meter db levels coming from my monitors?
 
There is absolutely no reason to mix at 85dB if your goal not is to get permanent hearing damage. Your mixes will turn out better if you mix at the volume level you are used to when listening to music. Plus checking it at different volumes. Many people say their mixes turns out better when they start to mix at a low level.

A couple of reasons why:

1. To protect your ears.

2. The Fletcher-munson effect. This is the reason why people recommend mixing at 85dB, but as we know, a mix will sound differently at different volumes. I think it would be better to make your mixes sound the best at the "average listening volume"... I don't know how loud that would be, but it's probably more like 60-70dB...

3. Room acoustics DOES influence your monitoring more the louder you play!!!

4. At loud volumes, your ears reacts to the loud sound and starts acting as a compressor...

Here is a quote from someone called "BobYordan":
Mixing with speakers can also be devistating, if you have a to high volume. Because the ears/brain have a built compressor, that get switched on. And the brain thinks everything sounds okay. This is a technique used by live performance sound engineer on rock concerts in "echo chamber" concert halls.

When the volume is to high everything sounds alright and they dont have to compensate for condition of the concert hall.

Mixing with speakers on a low-normal volume, is best. And from time to time step into the next room and listen to the levels of the different instruments from there.

... What you are used to when listening to music must be the best volume for mixing. Because then you are used to how commercial CDs sounds like at that level... (If you not are used to listen very loud that is... ;) )

/Anders
 
Sorry Boray........ most of what you just posted is simply dead-wrong.....

First off, 85dB is not considered a loud level.

Secondly, 85dB is typically suggested as a good level because it is at THAT level that the human ear response is the most flat across the audio frequency spectrum.

It IS a good idea to check mixes at different levels once you've got the mix in the ballpark, but it's very important not to vary the levels while you're analyzing and setting-up your mix.

Third, room acoustics ALWAYS affect your listening no matter what the level.
 
Blue Bear Sound said:
Sorry Boray........ most of what you just posted is simply dead-wrong.....

First off, 85dB is not considered a loud level.
Click to expand...


Sorry but that is not actually correct. Depends on a couple of things. What distance you are from the signal source, duration of exposure as well as personal ear sensitivity.

Sound pressure levels (SPL) exposure up to 70dB is considered "safe". However, you have to take that with a grain of salt. A jet engine (take-off) at 60m will produce SPLs of 120dB ("The Who" is credited at producing 119dB at a live show once) while a normal conversation (@1m) is said to produce 60dB.

Bottom line: they are your ears, take care of them. Listen at levels that are comfortable for you. Auditory nerves can become permanently damaged with prolonged exposures to 90dB.
 
I'm not a doctor, but I should think that if the there is a correlation between the Fletcher Munson curves and "nature's design," so to speak.

If human ear frequency response is most balanced and even at around 85 dB, then one could surmise that 85 dB is not an unnaturally loud level for humans. (Otherwise nature would have ensured that the balanced response of the human ear would occur at a much lower.)

Much of human "design" characteristics reflects the state of the natural environment around them. The ear's response is weighted to mid-range frequencies - why? Because human speech occurs in that frequency range. So the same reasoning can be applied to levels -- ears are designed to be balanced at around 85dB, so it figures that signal levels in that range are not generally unsafe.
 
Last edited:
OSHA requirements for 90 dB are no more than 8.0 hours exposure.

For me, I find 90 intolerable. 85 is the loudest I can tolerate without discomfort, as measured with a pair of SPL meters at ear position.

SPL varies with distance, so an SPL measurement of 85 is only valid if referenced to the ear position. A jet engine half a mile away is not very loud at all.

I have a friend who just got fitted with a pair of computerized hearing aids. They are programmable so he can switch patterns for his situation at the moment. He is stone deaf to conversation, etc without them.

He used to be a sound man.

Use ear protection all the time.
 
The human ear is not balanced at any sound preassure level. At 85dB, a 20Hz tone is percieved as only 20dB.

When playing a 50Hz tone at 85dB, you will percieve it as 70dB. That's 70/85=0.82... 82%

When playing a 50Hz tone at 65dB, you will percieve it as 40dB. 40/65=0.62. That's 62%.

If you like to risk permanent hearing damage like hearing loss, tinnitus or hyperacusis (over sensitivity) by being able to hear the 50Hz component of your mix 20 percent units louder, then that's your decision. (If your monitors even can reproduce those frequencies accurately anyway). It's no coincidence that something like 40% of everyone working with music has at least one of these conditions.

Many people feel unconfortable listening at 85dB (or even below). I got around a 80-85dB "unconfortable level" in a hearing test recently. Then where is the logic in that this would be the ear's "natural" listening level? A level that many people find unconfortable? Is it natural to be unconfortable? A more logical conclusion must be that the "natural" volume is where you feel perfectly confortable. And this is highly individual. (And so is most likely also the Fletcher-Munson graph).

If it turns out that you need a 6000W light bulb to be able to see the lowest frequency of the color spectrum, then this would of course be natures natural light level for the human eye!!!??? I hardly think so....

/Anders
 
Boray said:
The human ear is not balanced at any sound preassure level.
Click to expand...
Incorrect......... good old Fletcher-Munson curves show human ear response is MOST EVEN at 85dB (ie, not weighted to any one frequency, which is what I meant by balanced)..........

You think I'm making this up??? LOOK IT UP!
 
Boray said:
I got around a 80-85dB "unconfortable level" in a hearing test recently.
Click to expand...
Then I would suggest whatever meter you used to check your levels wasn't calibrated very well........ that or you have the ears of a dog............
 
caryindy said:
Bruce,
Where's the rolling eyes? I need it! :)
Click to expand...
heh-heh... I didn't put any because I wasn't being sarcastic... I was simply pointing out the error in his statement.........
 
I really enjoy working at lower volumes at times. (55-65) It's refreshing, easier on the ears and the mix must survive in those conditions. Just like listening from the other room. But that's got nothing to do with what's flattest.
 
Hey Bruce, what ever happened to YMMV? :D

I do believe that different people are comfortable at different levels. I played drums for over a year and a half without ear plugs, and my ears are very sensitive to high SPLs (and I have a constant low level ring in my left ear). I can't tolerate levels that others usually can and I always keep a pair of ear plugs in my wallet, just in case. ;)

Everyone is different and have had different listening experiences that have taken a tole on their ears... So it makes sense that the comfort level would be different for everyone.

-tkr
 
So that must mean everytime a truck passes by or Boray's exposed to city traffic, he passes out from auditory overload????????

I made my comment because Boray has a tendency to overstate and when he's caught exaggerating, he tries to qualify it even more, whether it's rational or not.
 

Attachments

  • dblevels.webp
    dblevels.webp
    20.9 KB · Views: 367
I mix at 85 dB, "A" weighted, slow responce measured at my mix position (a six foot equilateral triangle with the monitors in two corners and my head in the third). This ain't loud by a long shot and would say that for my taste, it is on the shy side of the level I prefer to listen at. I do check my mixs at lower and higher levels.
 
Blue Bear Sound said:
I'm not a doctor, but I should think that if the there is a correlation between the Fletcher Munson curves and "nature's design," so to speak.
Click to expand...

is this another one of those nasty religious threads again?.... what the fuck is all this nature talk...eh? Cave material?
All you nature believers always come in here spouting all this crap and try to make everyone else believe that "nature" is the only religion there is. Hogwash!! There is no proof that a design exists to due "nature". Couldn't get more obsessed and absurd.

85dB.... bunch of sissies. Tell that to Pete Townsend!!
:p

massive midfields in a 1000cubic/ft room...., the campaign for the hearing impaired.

why would anyone feel comfortable dusting their speaker cones?

Bear...obviously you've never felt the joy of the wind rushing out of a slant cabinet

nature...bah!!!
:D
 
Track Rat...I'm unimpressed... we all ready know you're deaf from playing with Bob Kuban!!

85 dB.. bullshit! I know you're studio rocks louder than that!!(most of the time!!!) lol!:D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top