When you turn down the volume.....

  • Thread starter Thread starter UberGawkman
  • Start date Start date
UberGawkman

UberGawkman

New member
After all I've learned about mixing, there's still this one thing that bothers me, and I don't think that I get it. In a nutshell, what the hell happens to a sound when you turn down the volume, and what can you do to something to make it sound at a lower volume like it does at a higher volume? It's like, there's this tiny logical gap of understanding in my brain.....

Let's talk about, a snare hit, for example. Let's say you have a snare drum track, and the drummer was hitting ear-bleeing rimshots at the time.

When you play back the snare drum track, there's tons of energy in the midrange, making that "CACK!!!" sound that almost hurts your ears. Same thing with a miced snare going through a PA at a concert. But I digress.

Anyway, when you take this snare drum track, and put it with the rest of the kit, it obviously can't be as loud as it was when you were originally playing it back. And when you reduce the volume, it goes from a loud, earsplitting "cack!!!" to a pathetic little "pock" with no oomph at all. I've tried eqing, compressing, multiband compressors, etc... and all I manage to do is make the "pock" a little louder. I've had similar difficulty with kick drum. If it's not super loud in the mix, it sounds all wussy.

So what's the secret? What do you do to make something that sounds great at high volumes to sound good at low volumes? What changes when you reduce the level? And what do you do to compensate? I'm listening to a Soulfly cd (which has an awesome cracky-snare drum), and when you turn down the volume, it still sounds like a cracky snare, just at a lower volume.


.... I hope this made sense and you get what I'm asking.... thanks for trying to comprehend my message!!!
 
That's the effect of the Fletcher-Munson curve. That's the way your ears deal with bass and treble at different volumes.
I got myself an SPL meter Rat Shack (about $40) and use it to set my playback/mix level to 85dB "A" weighted. I feel that always mixing at the same "loudness" I at least get mixes that are consistant in their balance.
 
This all goes back to that topic of giving instruments their own space in a mix. That snare may sound great on it's own, or even within a submix of the drums, but it will get masked by other instuments in the full mix that are taking up some of the same frequencies. EQ is your friend here...But, use as little as you can get away with. I'll quote someone else from the board (can't remember who though)...The term they used was to 'Carve' instruments into their own space. That's a perfect term. Use parametric EQs when possible to carve certain frequencies of certain instruments in/out of each other...so they fit like puzzle pieces. Also, on a commercial CD, it's probably compressed/limited to the hilt, and therefore most of the dynamics have had the life sucked out of them...Softer passages are not going to disappear (as much) into the noise floor of your listening environment when listening at lower volumes.

I think the human ear/brain tends to do some compression on its own as well, so if you're cranking something, your ears/brain will squash the dynamics in much the same way a compressor/limiter does...so that may explain why it sounds better loud. Using some finely tuned compression can help the overall mix to sound better at lower volumes. But be careful not to completely kill all dynamics as it will turn to mush and be a very non-musical.

In most cases it's best to mix at moderate to low volumes, and only crank it up once in a while to get a feel for where things are. Once you get a good mix at a low volume, it will most likely sound even better loud...The opposite is almost never true.
 
Hey, thanks guys..... after posting this, it suddenly ocurred to me..... I can't believe I had forgotten about the old Fletcher Munson.... I was actually copying a picture of the graph when I checked this messageboard again. Then what you guys said pretty much confirmed what I had been thinking... and I think I have an ironic solution which I'm gonna try tonight......

*talking out loud to self* On all the snare tracks that have that midrangy hit, rather than boosting that, I will CUT it, or whatever frequency was the only one "poking through" at lower relative volumes. Then, I can raise the level of the snare track more, and because the midrangy peaks are reduced, by the time I get those same frequencies at the level they were before, it will be as if all the others were boosted, making the drum sound fuller. Before, I was doing the opposite... I was boosting the midrange, which is essence, pushed the rest of the frequencies down.

Or, I may just may make a mock Munson compensation curve using my waves EQ :)


RAWWWWWWRRRR!!!!
 
Oh, and Looney.... I already practice the "carve out" method regularly. There's a nice little hole for the hit of the snare drum to poke through and sound nice.... it just doesn't sound nice even when soloed if it's at a low volume. :)
 
Cool! Even though Fletcher and Munson are working against you at lower volumes, I wouldn't add that curve to your mix...and I think you know why. ;)
 
Awwww...... c'mon...... boosting between 20-40hz about 12 db can do wonders for a mix!!!! :D
 
Can someone post a pic of the Fletcher-Munson or gimme a link?
When I was first recording at home, I asked a guy I knew a few questions about mixing and really needed a few simple practical eq'ing/compression/miking tips. The guy was a total gear snob and I don't think he really wanted to share. So he'd always tell me I NEEDED such-and-such high end gear. He also started spewing Fletcher-Munson in a way that was completely over my head.
I'm happy to say that 3 years later my mixes kick ass on his. Also, the finished product he was working on at the time got squashed to shit when he sent it out for mastering.:D
Don't get me wrong, I have a way to go yet, but I think I'm ready for some more head candy.
 
It's not the greatest image, I'm sure someone has a better one (and hopefully so, so I can print it out), but you should at least get an idea from this.....
 

Attachments

  • fletchermunsoncurve.webp
    fletchermunsoncurve.webp
    23.1 KB · Views: 69
HEY TRACK!!

Is it "A" weighted?!?!
I always though it was "C" weighted.
Course I've been wrong before....wonder what the difference is. I've been using C lately.

heylow
 
Back
Top