Mixing Volumes - How does it affect mixing?

[Palaver]

What volume levels do you mix at? How do you measure the SPLs from your monitors? What volume level is required in order to fairly represent the full frequency range of a general monitor setup?

 

Any help would be greatly appreciated.

 

BTW, I had a response in another thread stating that mixing at 85dB is an appropriate level. It sounds a little loud to me... but what's a safe level to avoid over compression... and to do the other tasks?

 

Any info would be greatly appreciated.

 

Cheers,

Phil

[whitepapagold]

The softer the music the harder it is to make it sound good. The louder the music the easier it is to hear some freq. issues. I personally would like to hear still in a few years so I mix relatively low and ONLY raise volume when clients ask...

 

Ive found a great sounding mix at low volume translates better than a great sounding one at high volume only because you get caugt up in umph factor and your ears get tired faster.

 

If you are smart, you will learn your speakers and mix where you aren't losing your hearing- which is WAY lower than you may think.

[Phil O'Keefe]

Go to Radio Shack and purchase a SPL meter.

 

http://www.radioshack.com/product/index.jsp?productId=2103667&cp=&sr=1&kw=spl+meter&origkw=SPL+meter&pg=2&parentPage=search

 

IMO, EVERYONE who records and mixes audio should own a SPL meter.

 

The frequency response of human hearing is not linear, and is level dependent. Google "Fletcher Munson curve" for more details... but the basics are that our ears are less sensitive to the lowest and highest frequency ranges (especially at low volume levels), and most sensitive to midrange frequencies. Our hearing is the most linear at about 85 dB; which coincidentally, is about the maximum level that OSHA regulations allow for an 8 hour exposure time. Mixing loud isn't going to give you any benefit in terms of how you perceive frequency balances, but it CAN result in hearing damage - and once you damage your hearing, it's forever.

 

Mixing at very low levels isn't something I do as a default, but I do go back and listen to things at just barely audible levels as part of the mixing process - as whitepapagold said, if it sounds good when played back very softly, it will oftentimes sound fine when played back loud. A variation on that theme, which I learned from George Massenburg, is the "down the hall" listening test... I'll walk out of the control room, leave the door open, and listen from down the hall or in the other room. It's a good way to get a different perspective on the mix IMO.

 

My suggestion is to spend the $50 and get a meter, and then use it! I don't think it's bad to check "gestalt" and play things back louder than 85dB for a few minutes here and there, but in general, I try to keep the levels at around 80-85 dB when mixing. IMO, that offers the best balance of frequency accuracy, and long term hearing preservation.

[Palaver]

Thank-you kindly for the advice. I never realized one of these meters was so cheap. it's definitely the next thing to get on my list.

 

Cheers,

Phil Butler

[UstadKhanAli]

I have a Radio Shack SPL meter. I always had heard that people should try and mix around 85dB. I had always been told that I mixed nice and low volume, and thought that too, so I was surprised that I was noticeably higher than that, around 90-95dB on average, sometimes louder if I wanted to hear what was going on with the bass. The Radio Shack SPL meter stops me from monitoring so loud. I can keep referring to it. Quite nice. I find it a little difficult to mix at 85dB when people are chattering in the control room, though, so I have to try and ask people to keep it down sometimes.

[fuzzball]

Go to Radio Shack and purchase a SPL meter. http://www.radioshack.com/product/index.jsp?productId=2103667&cp=&sr=1&kw=spl+meter&origkw=SPL+meter&pg=2&parentPage=search IMO, EVERYONE who records and mixes audio should own a SPL meter. The frequency response of human hearing is not linear, and is level dependent. Google "Fletcher Munson curve" for more details... but the basics are that our ears are less sensitive to the lowest and highest frequency ranges (especially at low volume levels), and most sensitive to midrange frequencies. Our hearing is the most linear at about 85 dB; which coincidentally, is about the maximum level that OSHA regulations allow for an 8 hour exposure time. Mixing loud isn't going to give you any benefit in terms of how you perceive frequency balances, but it CAN result in hearing damage - and once you damage your hearing, it's forever. Mixing at very low levels isn't something I do as a default, but I do go back and listen to things at just barely audible levels as part of the mixing process - as whitepapagold said, if it sounds good when played back very softly, it will oftentimes sound fine when played back loud. A variation on that theme, which I learned from George Massenburg, is the "down the hall" listening test... I'll walk out of the control room, leave the door open, and listen from down the hall or in the other room. It's a good way to get a different perspective on the mix IMO. My suggestion is to spend the $50 and get a meter, and then use it! I don't think it's bad to check "gestalt" and play things back louder than 85dB for a few minutes here and there, but in general, I try to keep the levels at around 80-85 dB when mixing. IMO, that offers the best balance of frequency accuracy, and long term hearing preservation.

 

I agree 100%, but you may want a better meter...thoes are known to not be very accurate.

[Phil O'Keefe]

I find it a little difficult to mix at 85dB when people are chattering in the control room, though, so I have to try and ask people to keep it down sometimes.

 

I've been tempted to put up a sign on the CR door that says "listening room", or maybe one that says "quiet please - listening in progress".

 

If it's related to the musical tasks at hand, I don't have a problem with talking / discussions, but if it's general chatter, socializing and joking around, well, that's what we have a lounge for.

[Phil O'Keefe]

 

I agree 100%, but you may want a better meter...thoes are known to not be very accurate.

 

 

Yes, there are definitely better meters out there, but they're usually going to cost more, and you don't need ridiculous accuracy from the meter for this task - the RS digital model actually isn't too bad in that regard, and for monitoring approximate listening levels, it should be sufficient for most users. Plus, it's available locally at a large number of stores nation-wide.

[UstadKhanAli]

Yeah, I agree...for this basic sort of thing, the Radio Shack meter gives you an accurate enough portrayal of what's going on.

 

Phil, I only WISH I had a lounge....

 

The chattering is not a problem most of the time, thankfully.

[fuzzball]

 

Yes, there are definitely better meters out there, but they're usually going to cost more, and you don't need ridiculous accuracy from the meter for this task - the RS digital model actually isn't too bad in that regard, and for monitoring approximate listening levels, it should be sufficient for most users. Plus, it's available locally at a large number of stores nation-wide.

 

 

Good point, I use mine for live shows also where I need more accuracy. I have also found it helpful when setting up the mains for shows.

[fuzzball]

 

Yes, there are definitely better meters out there, but they're usually going to cost more, and you don't need ridiculous accuracy from the meter for this task - the RS digital model actually isn't too bad in that regard, and for monitoring approximate listening levels, it should be sufficient for most users. Plus, it's available locally at a large number of stores nation-wide.

 

 

Crap I did not notice, that is a different model than the ones I have tested it may be better than I realized.

 

I used an older model.

[Phil O'Keefe]

You probably had one of the analog meters. They were OK (I used one for many years before it finally died; I replaced it with the RS digital SPL meter), but the meters could get out of whack on them occasionally. I think the digital is a bit more accurate... but even the analog model beats no meter.

[Lucky #9]

Not to hijack the thread, but...I have been curious as to how you gents (and ladies) get the proper level to record

your live amps when using condenser mics, without damaging the mics by surpassing their rated SPL max levels.

 

Do you actually measure the beasts with an SPL meter to determine how loud you can go before knocking out your condenser?

Or do you rely on your experience/ears :phil: to know how loud is loud?

 

Many thanks.

[UstadKhanAli]

Not to hijack the thread, but ...I have been curious as to how you gents (and ladies) get the proper level to record your live amps when using condenser mics, without damaging the mics by surpassing their rated SPL max levels. Do you actually measure the beasts with an SPL meter to determine how loud you can go before knocking out your condenser? Or do you rely on your experience/ears :phil: to know how loud is loud? Many thanks.

 

First of all, my condensers have high SPL levels.

 

Second of all, I record only as loud as I need to get my tone, and since I record in a relatively small room, that's not very loud. I use small amps (low-watt amps, in other words) so it distorts at lower SPLs. I suppose it's experience, but y'know, I've never once blown a mic, even while recording really loud drums.

[fuzzball]

 

First of all, my condensers have high SPL levels. Second of all, I record only as loud as I need to get my tone, and since I record in a relatively small room, that's not very loud. I use small amps (low-watt amps, in other words) so it distorts at lower SPLs. I suppose it's experience, but y'know, I've never once blown a mic, even while recording really loud drums.

 

 

Same here.