Ford Van
Banned
And for the fun of it Glen, you should go read up on Bob Katz talking about a 83dB level for monitoring. 
Ford Van
Banned
The more I read your last post Glen, the more I realize that you obviously don't understand that a test tone and music are two TOTALLY different things while listening.
And again, if you calibrated your monitoring volume with a 1khz tone at 0dbfs, indeed, THAT may be loud, but little of your music is going to be even half that volume! You are obviously not undestanding the difference between a test tone and DYNAMIC MUSIC which will seldomly achieve 0dbfs, and certainly when it does, it WILL NOT be the sensitive midrange stuff! It will mostly be low end, which at that same reference volume would STILL need to be several db higher than 1khz at 85db to have the same relative loudness.
It pays to pay think it through first Glen.
And again, if you calibrated your monitoring volume with a 1khz tone at 0dbfs, indeed, THAT may be loud, but little of your music is going to be even half that volume! You are obviously not undestanding the difference between a test tone and DYNAMIC MUSIC which will seldomly achieve 0dbfs, and certainly when it does, it WILL NOT be the sensitive midrange stuff! It will mostly be low end, which at that same reference volume would STILL need to be several db higher than 1khz at 85db to have the same relative loudness.
It pays to pay think it through first Glen.
Ford Van
Banned
SouthSIDE Glen said:Ed, don't take it so personally, for chrissake. No one is right 100% of the time; not me, not you, not Harvey, no one. Just because someone points out an occasional flaw in your diamond is no reason to turn into another chessrock. Take a breath, relax.
G.
Read above post.
T
The Audio Cave
New member
For my control room, which is on the small side, 85db is too loud and brings too many room reflections into play. I monitor at lower volumes and it works fine for me.
I don't think there is an absolute "perfect level" for monitoring, especially in smaller project studios. Now if you're in a larger room (more spacious and more controlled) and you're farther away from the speakers 85db will sound much different from 85db in my home studio bouncing off of my 8 foot ceilings and relatively close side walls.
I monitor at a level that gives me a good moderate volume and keeps the room out of play. Last time I measured with the Radio Shack gizmo (which frankly I don't do anymore) it was around 70db C-weighted I think. I just find a level that's comfortable for the moment and style and go for it.
I don't think there is an absolute "perfect level" for monitoring, especially in smaller project studios. Now if you're in a larger room (more spacious and more controlled) and you're farther away from the speakers 85db will sound much different from 85db in my home studio bouncing off of my 8 foot ceilings and relatively close side walls.
I monitor at a level that gives me a good moderate volume and keeps the room out of play. Last time I measured with the Radio Shack gizmo (which frankly I don't do anymore) it was around 70db C-weighted I think. I just find a level that's comfortable for the moment and style and go for it.
T
travelin travis
New member
I appreciate the original post ford van. I'm a mixing retard and can use all the help I can get. I've read it before but it sure as hell didn't hurt me to read it again. This won't change how I talk to you in the cave though. 
SonicAlbert
Super-Sonic "Herb" Albert
Bobby Owsinski's "Mixing Engineer's Handbook", is a must have for any home recordist/mixer. The excuse of "I can't afford it" just does not make it, if you care enough about something you find a way.
flatfinger
Use every dam bit!
Call me ignorant ( like you need an invitation),
But is'nt the whole point of calibrating your monitor level (whatever level : personal choice : and method you choose to calibrate it with : personal choice : ) supposed to help you get dialed in and able to repeat your mixing consistantly???? what are you really arguing about?? .
You obviously have more points you actually agree on , but can't wait to fight on the small stuff!! sheese
Now you'll probably stop fighting and jump on my sorry ass!
People will have to sort through it all for themseves any how.
CAN'T WE ALL JUST GET ALONG??????
But is'nt the whole point of calibrating your monitor level (whatever level : personal choice : and method you choose to calibrate it with : personal choice : ) supposed to help you get dialed in and able to repeat your mixing consistantly???? what are you really arguing about?? .
You obviously have more points you actually agree on , but can't wait to fight on the small stuff!! sheese
Now you'll probably stop fighting and jump on my sorry ass!
People will have to sort through it all for themseves any how.
CAN'T WE ALL JUST GET ALONG??????
A
Arthur
New member
I hate to nitpick...
But I think you might mean 0 dB VU, no? All the boards, be it SSLs and/or Neves, I worked on (and my PT rig too) are calibrated at 0VU equalling somewhere between -14 and -16 dB. If set for film or broadcast, they even go down to 0dB VU = -20 dBfs.
That is the way I have been taught all these years.
If you really did mean 0dBFS (as in digital full scale) then I'm sorry. You can of course calibrate to dBFS but it makes no sense to me, without knowing how it translates to dBVU, in other words what context does that dBFS translate to. But my point was that 0dB VU equalling 85 dB is typical mixing volume for film and is (to my ears, your ears may vary ) rather loud.
Anywho, doesn't take away from the fact that there is quite some useful info in the original post.
Cheers
Arthur
But I think you might mean 0 dB VU, no? All the boards, be it SSLs and/or Neves, I worked on (and my PT rig too) are calibrated at 0VU equalling somewhere between -14 and -16 dB. If set for film or broadcast, they even go down to 0dB VU = -20 dBfs.
That is the way I have been taught all these years.
If you really did mean 0dBFS (as in digital full scale) then I'm sorry. You can of course calibrate to dBFS but it makes no sense to me, without knowing how it translates to dBVU, in other words what context does that dBFS translate to. But my point was that 0dB VU equalling 85 dB is typical mixing volume for film and is (to my ears, your ears may vary
) rather loud.Anywho, doesn't take away from the fact that there is quite some useful info in the original post.
Cheers
Arthur
flatfinger
Use every dam bit!
Why can't they all get along!!!!! ( stupid standards)
ez_willis
.
jrhager84 said:
You're not looking in the right place.
iqi616
Yet another Mike
I've done the Bob Katz thing and for me the resulting volume is a little loud but then I'm not listening to his Lipinskis so it's possibly the limitations of my crappy speakers and/or the inaccuracy of my Radio Shack SPL meter. So, I listen down from that level by 6 dB. That happens to be the volume where my ears start to hear properly - the bass comes in and everything starts to just sound right. Turning up the volume sounds the same but louder until it gets uncomfortable so I am confident that I'm listening at the optimum loudness for my lug-holes. I can listen at that volume all day with no fatigue.
But that's not important. The big lesson for me was to spend most of my time listening at a known volume. I sometimes listen louder and often listen quieter but no level or EQ decisions are ever finalized until I've listened at my standard loudness. This has greatly improved the consistency of my results.
When I mix at my standard loudness and compare repeatedly to reference tracks at that same loudness I can come back the next day and the mix sounds just the same as when I last heard it. Before I was always plagued with mixes that mysteriously changed overnight and wouldn't translate.
The other benefit is that I have become more attuned to the frequency spectra of what I'm listening to. I can switch between reference tracks and my mixes and it's a lot easier to hear the peaks and troughs and go fix them. Again I believe this is because my ears have become accustomed to what a good mix sounds like frequency-wise at my standard loudness and are not confused by the changes in frequency response brought about by inconsistent monitoring volume.
I'm no expert, this is my experience of monitoring at a consistent comfortably loud level. Monitoring at low levels has it's place in my process - detecting excess compression and spotting parts that are too loud or quiet in the mix or have peaky EQ - but I agree with Ed that most of the time you should mix at a reasonably loud level. That is because the frequency response of your ears is flatter and the relative loudness of individual tracks has the correct perspective.
But that's not important. The big lesson for me was to spend most of my time listening at a known volume. I sometimes listen louder and often listen quieter but no level or EQ decisions are ever finalized until I've listened at my standard loudness. This has greatly improved the consistency of my results.
When I mix at my standard loudness and compare repeatedly to reference tracks at that same loudness I can come back the next day and the mix sounds just the same as when I last heard it. Before I was always plagued with mixes that mysteriously changed overnight and wouldn't translate.
The other benefit is that I have become more attuned to the frequency spectra of what I'm listening to. I can switch between reference tracks and my mixes and it's a lot easier to hear the peaks and troughs and go fix them. Again I believe this is because my ears have become accustomed to what a good mix sounds like frequency-wise at my standard loudness and are not confused by the changes in frequency response brought about by inconsistent monitoring volume.
I'm no expert, this is my experience of monitoring at a consistent comfortably loud level. Monitoring at low levels has it's place in my process - detecting excess compression and spotting parts that are too loud or quiet in the mix or have peaky EQ - but I agree with Ed that most of the time you should mix at a reasonably loud level. That is because the frequency response of your ears is flatter and the relative loudness of individual tracks has the correct perspective.
snow lizard
Dedicated Slacker
cellardweller said:
I have nothing to add - I just thought this post was worth quoting.
sl
J
joswil44
New member
85dB is supposed to be the recommended industry standard listening level for recordings. At least thats what they teach in schools....
For safetly and effectiveness....
Theres always times to turn it down and crank it up, but for general reference I'd say thats about right.
For safetly and effectiveness....
Theres always times to turn it down and crank it up, but for general reference I'd say thats about right.
A
Arthur
New member
Now we're getting there... that is what they teach at schools...
At the risk of sounding very harsh now, believe me, it is not my intention.
But every single time I had an intern from SAE or another school, I had to re-train the guy. They (the schools) give you some theory, granted. They give you a base to *start* But are you a recording or mixing engineer when you graduate? No way. This takes time and REAL experience in the control room.
I had a guy some years ago, nice chap, very friendly and eager and full of the very best intentions. He was one of the best in his class. So I thought - ok, he'll be able to at least prepare the board (an SSL 4000G) for the mix, like setting up the computer and stuff, preparing the PT session, setting I/O, patching some gear - basic stuff, you know... short story... I had to do it all over. Now you could argue that the studio (and I) had some particular way of doing things and he didn't know that. To a certain extend that is true. But what I asked was pretty basic stuff.
And he was not the only one. And I have seen it in several studios I worked in. Also, some guys (again, not their fault, but the 'teacher's' who pump silly stuff in their head are the fault here) think they are the real deal when graduating. The attitude is sometimes... well I don't wanna go there. I really think the schools are a waste of money and time. Take that money, get an internship at a real studio and use the saved money to live on for the 2 years you are in the studio. You will see how it is really done, plus the networking is invaluable.
So back on topic and off my soap box They teach you this 85 dB stuff, but in real practice... go with what you feel comfy with. I feel comfy and make good mixes by mixing very soft most of the time, and only sometimes go loud and reference aganst the main speakers for a bass check or if the A&R needs to be impressed
I also take my own nearfields to the studio (in my case a pair of Dynaudio BM15a). I know them inside out at every volume. And here is the key: get to know your monitors and know what comes out of them and how this will translate. Again, not theory, but experience and a lot of practice.
Also, to close, I never use commercial material as reference before mixing. Why? it is not realistic to compare material that has been mastered and squashed to the yazzooo. Levels are not realistic for mixes.
OK, I'm off now
Cheers
Arthur
At the risk of sounding very harsh now, believe me, it is not my intention.
But every single time I had an intern from SAE or another school, I had to re-train the guy. They (the schools) give you some theory, granted. They give you a base to *start* But are you a recording or mixing engineer when you graduate? No way. This takes time and REAL experience in the control room.
I had a guy some years ago, nice chap, very friendly and eager and full of the very best intentions. He was one of the best in his class. So I thought - ok, he'll be able to at least prepare the board (an SSL 4000G) for the mix, like setting up the computer and stuff, preparing the PT session, setting I/O, patching some gear - basic stuff, you know... short story... I had to do it all over. Now you could argue that the studio (and I) had some particular way of doing things and he didn't know that. To a certain extend that is true. But what I asked was pretty basic stuff.
And he was not the only one. And I have seen it in several studios I worked in. Also, some guys (again, not their fault, but the 'teacher's' who pump silly stuff in their head are the fault here) think they are the real deal when graduating. The attitude is sometimes... well I don't wanna go there. I really think the schools are a waste of money and time. Take that money, get an internship at a real studio and use the saved money to live on for the 2 years you are in the studio. You will see how it is really done, plus the networking is invaluable.
So back on topic and off my soap box
They teach you this 85 dB stuff, but in real practice... go with what you feel comfy with. I feel comfy and make good mixes by mixing very soft most of the time, and only sometimes go loud and reference aganst the main speakers for a bass check or if the A&R needs to be impressed I also take my own nearfields to the studio (in my case a pair of Dynaudio BM15a). I know them inside out at every volume. And here is the key: get to know your monitors and know what comes out of them and how this will translate. Again, not theory, but experience and a lot of practice.
Also, to close, I never use commercial material as reference before mixing. Why? it is not realistic to compare material that has been mastered and squashed to the yazzooo. Levels are not realistic for mixes.
OK, I'm off now
Cheers
Arthur
masteringhouse
www.masteringhouse.com
Arthur said:
For levels I absolutely agree, for frequency balance commercial material can be a good guide but certainly not an absolute.
In regard to listening levels, any good engineer that I've worked with listens to their mix at all levels. It helps to give you a different perspective in part because the ear is non-linear just as the speakers the mix will be played on are non-linear. If a mix doesn't hold-up at lower levels as well as louder, there's something wrong with the mix.
Also it gives your ears a break. When your ears are fatigued you're not hearing "flat" at 85 db no matter what Fletcher-Munson (or Fletcher-Mercenary for that matter
) may say.
T
The Audio Cave
New member
I agree since it's not done for levels but for the other stuff it helps sometimes. I match the apparent level of the reference to the apparent level of my mix pretty close and compare tonal quality, balance and space mostly.
I never use music that's squashed all the hell as a reference check. That's a bad idea. I'll choose something that has plenty of dynamics in it and that sounds really good.
flatfinger
Use every dam bit!
Use commercial CD's from the 70's and 80's to mid 90's???
N
NYMorningstar
Recording Modus Operandi
Arthur said:Now we're getting there... that is what they teach at schools...
At the risk of sounding very harsh now, believe me, it is not my intention.
But every single time I had an intern from SAE or another school, I had to re-train the guy. They (the schools) give you some theory, granted. They give you a base to *start* But are you a recording or mixing engineer when you graduate? No way. This takes time and REAL experience in the control room.
I had a guy some years ago, nice chap, very friendly and eager and full of the very best intentions. He was one of the best in his class. So I thought - ok, he'll be able to at least prepare the board (an SSL 4000G) for the mix, like setting up the computer and stuff, preparing the PT session, setting I/O, patching some gear - basic stuff, you know... short story... I had to do it all over. Now you could argue that the studio (and I) had some particular way of doing things and he didn't know that. To a certain extend that is true. But what I asked was pretty basic stuff.
And he was not the only one. And I have seen it in several studios I worked in. Also, some guys (again, not their fault, but the 'teacher's' who pump silly stuff in their head are the fault here) think they are the real deal when graduating. The attitude is sometimes... well I don't wanna go there. I really think the schools are a waste of money and time. Take that money, get an internship at a real studio and use the saved money to live on for the 2 years you are in the studio. You will see how it is really done, plus the networking is invaluable.
So back on topic and off my soap box
I also take my own nearfields to the studio (in my case a pair of Dynaudio BM15a). I know them inside out at every volume. And here is the key: get to know your monitors and know what comes out of them and how this will translate. Again, not theory, but experience and a lot of practice.
Also, to close, I never use commercial material as reference before mixing. Why? it is not realistic to compare material that has been mastered and squashed to the yazzooo. Levels are not realistic for mixes.
OK, I'm off now
Cheers
Arthur
I think your generalization is a little overboard. I'd take an unexperienced graduate over a gofer anyday. You can teach a monkey to twist knobs and call him experienced. Teaching someone who has a basic understanding of audio is a whole different ballgame.
On one hand you're saying a school gives you theory and a base to start and on the other hand you're saying they're a waste of money and time. That's a pretty mixed up message if you ask me.
iqi616
Yet another Mike
Maybe I need to rethink a little...iqi616 said:
http://emusician.com/tutorials/emusic_monitoring_success/
...maybe I should be spending a lot more time listening at low levels and then just come up to my reference level as a final check before committing.
I can see how varying the levels makes use of the F-M curves and different speaker responses to make sure that the mix works regardless - i.e. is translatable to other situations.
I still think it's important to know what loudness you are listening at and to compare with reference tracks playing at the same loudness.
Ford Van
Banned
Bob Katz talks in depth at having a standardized listening level in the studio!
Anyway, I suppose we could beat this to death and still not change minds often. People are going to do what they do. If what I have shared helps them, great! If it doesn't help you, or you work better working another way, great! Start your own long thread sharing your work flow ideas and "secrets".
Anyway, I suppose we could beat this to death and still not change minds often.
People are going to do what they do. If what I have shared helps them, great! If it doesn't help you, or you work better working another way, great! Start your own long thread sharing your work flow ideas and "secrets".