|
Post by starandchlorisse on Feb 2, 2017 7:14:03 GMT
This is my question of the day .....
Ethan in his book suggests that one should listen to at about 85 Db for mixing with monitors and also check with headphones for details etc
Is there any conventional suggested number of Db when mixing with headphones ? I want to say yes since headphones offer much more detail.
But Is this correct? If yes any suggested conventional Db number for mixing with headphones?
Many thanks
|
|
|
Post by arnyk on Feb 2, 2017 11:40:31 GMT
This is my question of the day ..... Ethan in his book suggests that one should listen to at about 85 Db for mixing with monitors and also checking with headphones for checking details etc Is there any conventional suggested number of Db when mixing with headphones? I want to say yes since headphones offer much more detail. But Is this correct? If yes any suggested conventional Db number for mixing with headphones? Many thanks The 85 dB number is a pretty fair approximation of the SPL at which the ear is most sensitive to audible differences. It has been long apparent from historic evidence such as the Fletcher-Munson curves that the ear's sensitivity goes up as the SPL goes up. In early ABX testing back in the 1970s' we started noticing that there was a clear point of diminishing returns as the SPL rose above say, 100 dB. Later scientific experiments refined this to around 85 dB, but it is not a one-size fits all exact number. It will vary somewhat maybe by 10 dB depending on the difference you are listening for, the program material and listening environment, and who you are. IME people with significant ear damage may have to turn things up to insane levels to hear differences at all. I see this in young people all too frequently.
|
|
|
Post by Hexspa on Feb 3, 2017 5:40:21 GMT
I'm just going to spit this out warts and all. 85dB was established for film. I forget who did it - Dolby? - but it turns out his calculations were wrong so now it's 83dB. That's for a huge room though - 10,000ft3. For smaller rooms you calibrate down. www.soundonsound.com/techniques/monitor-wizard bottom of page. For instance, my room is roughly 2500ft3. 85dB is impractical and very awkward - especially considering I'm in an apartment. My last known calibration level was 75dBC. I use K metering. I know this stuff because I had a crush on loudness meters for awhile. I understand about equal loudness curves. However, there is a lot of interrelated info about this topic. Maybe I'll do another blog post so Arny can shit on it again JK! Practically, you want to mix at up to three volume levels: low, medium and high. Low levels help you determine if your lead elements are audible at low levels. Things like vocal automation can be done here. If you mix dance music then your kick should be audible here etc. For this I like to apply a high pass filter to my master buss (Slew Only by Airwindows actually). This would be about 25dB down from your calibrated standard. Medium levels are for making sure your mix is checking out as a whole. Regarding headphones, you won't want to use them as your final standard reference unless you know what you're doing. Andrew Scheps says he can mix in headphones now but I doubt he'd be as good as he is without having used those Tannoys for so long. Medium I consider to be at or around your calibrated level. High levels are useful for setting the low/sub and high end of your mix. Bass and treble disappear the quieter you mix. So your high hats, sub bass, kick/bass interaction, vocal top, snare top, guitar/synth/vocal top interaction are all best balanced at higher levels. Again, I'll typically use a low pass and high pass to isolate these ranges to get them happening. This is the range below about 140Hz and above around 5k. Maybe +10dB from your reference - for the top end you should turn it up until it starts to hurt/"push in your ears" a bit. I just learned this and I find it helps. For lows it should be loud enough to be awkward. Remember - if your stuff gets played out in a club/live venue that bass is going to be on display. Take it with a grain of salt. I've only been mixing for about 5 years and even then not as a primary gig. My last release was done to spec out my mix template, is composed primarily of loops and isn't in my main genre. It did use the above info to be completed so if you like the sound of it then you can verify what I'm saying - youtu.be/Ttyj7i9k0QMThanks, -m
|
|
|
Post by arnyk on Feb 5, 2017 11:39:46 GMT
Maybe I'll do another blog post so Arny can shit on it again JK! I think you are being way too sensitive. For example I never directly insulted you or your intelligence. However, being proven wrong in public is not high on many people's list of fun things to do. If you would like to be shat upon, I could do that if promised free passage by the sysop, as I have experienced it many times. I really don't like doing that. Being correct all the time eliminates a certain amount of criticism, but it is possible to be demeaned and punished for being right. I get no pleasure from doing that, but I do like to see correct statements being made, even if I have to make them. ;-) I really prefer other people to be correct. Correcting their mistakes seems like a positive step in that direction.
|
|
|
Post by Hexspa on Feb 5, 2017 19:23:01 GMT
Arny I was joking. That's what JK means. I figure a senior user of the 'net would know that.
You seem eager to shit on me. All you need is Ethan's green light. Similar to a dog in the hands of evil owners.
I'm utterly uninterested in further forum drama. I genuinely don't care about being wrong about speakers. I told people at jiu jitsu that I was corrected for my mistakes and they seemed to care more than me.
If I gave a flying fak about being wrong I'd never post here. Do you honestly think I believe I can hold a candle to any of ya'lls knowledge? I'm a 34 year old part timer with a few bass traps. For god sakes I just wanna rock.
But whatever. Take all the shots you want - drink yourself under the table! I'll be in another thread if you want to follow me around.
-m
|
|
|
Post by Ethan Winer on Feb 8, 2017 20:37:07 GMT
Anyone can correct anyone about any subject, as long as it's done nicely.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Hamilton on Feb 24, 2017 22:48:37 GMT
I read some advice a little bit ago that I've been following ever since. It takes Hexspa's "Mix at three volume levels" and fine tunes it a bit. When doing a 'blind listening test', the majority of people will say mix "A" sounds better than "Mix B", when they are, in fact, the same exact mix. It's simply because Mix A is a couple of dB louder than B. So, in order to eliminate this false sense of mix differences, the recommendation is to apply physical marks on your playback volume control/s at three positions - low-level, mid-level and at the loudest level you would comfortably listen, and NEVER DEVIATE from listening at these three levels. Makes sense to me.
Alright - let the shit fly! ( a little more at this age ain't gonna' make much difference... even if it comes form the Mack & Vernier area)
|
|
|
Post by Hexspa on Feb 25, 2017 12:14:48 GMT
Ya idk. I'm still learning the craft.
Phil Tan (Rihanna "Diamonds" and Chris Lord Alge - Greenday) both mix quietly.
I think the bottom line is to listen to your mix in as many ways as possible.
Check a different system, different room, different listening positions, different days, different volumes, with and without filters etc.
It's like examining a guitar you're buying from someone - you don't just look at the finish and make an assessment; you've got to check the back, the electronics, intonating elements etc.
I don't buy the "NEVER DEVIATE" philosophy. Then again "always deviate" probably has disadvantages. How about find a system, stick with it and mess around from time-to-time?
One thing I'm trying out is, before completely "finishing", letting mixes sit for awhile. In contrast, some people get so excited they just post it to social immediately. deadmau5 says let it sit for a week then come back to it. I'm finishing up the third mix for my upcoming EP and the previous two mixes have been left at about 90-95%. After all, they say mixes are abandoned rather than finished. Having gained experience, I'm sure I'll have something interesting to add to my first mix.
-m
|
|
|
Post by arnyk on Feb 25, 2017 12:55:51 GMT
I read some advice a little bit ago that I've been following ever since. It takes Hexspa's "Mix at three volume levels" and fine tunes it a bit. When doing a 'blind listening test', the majority of people will say mix "A" sounds better than "Mix B", when they are, in fact, the same exact mix. It's simply because Mix A is a couple of dB louder than B. So, in order to eliminate this false sense of mix differences, the recommendation is to apply physical marks on your playback volume control/s at three positions - low-level, mid-level and at the loudest level you would comfortably listen, and NEVER DEVIATE from listening at these three levels. Makes sense to me. Alright - let the shit fly! ( a little more at this age ain't gonna' make much difference... even if it comes form the Mack & Vernier area) Makes perfect sense to me. The musical energy of the musical various sources in your mix is in different frequency bands. According to the Fletcher Munson Curves, the perception of loudness in different frequency bands varies with level. Therefore, the sonic balance of your mix varies with level. Since not everybody is going to listen to your mix at your preferred listening level, you need to vary it and get it to be as consistent as you can at various realistic listening levels. As an aside, for years I mixed live sound in a performance space where the musicians sat in the direct sound field of the SR speakers. BTW not my design, and the speakers were mounted 35 feet up and were not to be moved or even reaimed. Furthermore, the musical director was not negotiating on where his people sat. I managed this situation and obtained pretty good freedom from feedback by using the channel eq of my digital console to limit every mic input to the narrowest frequency band I could and not adversely affect the timbre of the instrument or voice. Often the settings did not correspond to the information about instrument and voice frequency bands that you see in books.
|
|
|
Post by Hexspa on Feb 26, 2017 3:07:15 GMT
arnyk quik tip: bandpass the shit out of the trumpet
|
|
|
Post by arnyk on Feb 27, 2017 13:01:24 GMT
arnyk quik tip: bandpass the shit out of the trumpet If by that you mean that by following my stated methodology of narrowing the bandpass until there was an audible sound quality loss, I ended up assigning surprisingly narrow bands to brass instruments, that would be true. It also would be true for just about every instrument and voice that I worked with. The frequency ranges in the textbooks are appaarently theoretical limits, and not the ranges that people actually play the instruments in while performing regular music. I had a wide range of both voices and instruments to work with, as our little ensemble was kind of like a bunch of orchestral soloists meets a madrigal meets a rock band. Everything from a Bassoon, a bass cello, a variety of orchestral percussion instruments, and a flute to the usual electric guitar, bass, and drum kit. Plus solo singers, quartets, duets, and small choirs. Carefully tuning my system up during rehearsals gave me plenty of opportunities to fiddle with the console settings (Yamaha 02R96) until I obtained what I wanted. I had the 02R96 in the system for about 6 or 7 years and we had two rehearsals and two performances per week. Lots of time to learn all kinds of neat things!
|
|
|
Post by Hexspa on Feb 27, 2017 15:25:01 GMT
arnyk quik tip: bandpass the shit out of the trumpet If by that you mean that by following my stated methodology of narrowing the bandpass until there was an audible sound quality loss, I ended up assigning surprisingly narrow bands to brass instruments, that would be true. It also would be true for just about every instrument and voice that I worked with. The frequency ranges in the textbooks are appaarently theoretical limits, and not the ranges that people actually play the instruments in while performing regular music. I had a wide range of both voices and instruments to work with, as our little ensemble was kind of like a bunch of orchestral soloists meets a madrigal meets a rock band. Everything from a Bassoon, a bass cello, a variety of orchestral percussion instruments, and a flute to the usual electric guitar, bass, and drum kit. Plus solo singers, quartets, duets, and small choirs. Carefully tuning my system up during rehearsals gave me plenty of opportunities to fiddle with the console settings (Yamaha 02R96) until I obtained what I wanted. I had the 02R96 in the system for about 6 or 7 years and we had two rehearsals and two performances per week. Lots of time to learn all kinds of neat things! I was joking. I'm sure it worked great. -m
|
|