As long as you reference your mixes against commercial mixes that you respect, I don't see any problem. Most great mix engineers mix at low levels more often than not - I don't see any justification to mix at such high levels all the time - i'm looking after my ears too.
Quote:
|
"Mixing with your mind" (great book by the way) by Mike Stavrou.
|
I love this book, and highly respect Mike Stavrou for his work at AIR studios on The Pretenders and a whole lot of other great stuff. I use some of the tracks he mixed as my reference audio files.
That book is different from most, and it's aimed at people who already have the basics of recording well sorted. It's more about taking it to the next level, and most of the stuff he is talking out is creative use of your mind using what you have, rather than focusing on gear specifics. Very refreshing. But occasionally I see people who don't like or understand this book - usually because the don't understand the basics to start with, and these new ideas can seem a bit whacky.
I think his comments on digital audio are probably more relevant to 16 bit audio - although he does recommend 24 bits, and the basic principles still apply. I haven't seen a better explaination of the perceptual differences between analog and digital anywhere else. Most discussions get into the maths and the theory, and missing the big picture. Mikes comparison of the two skyscrapers (to those who have the book) makes it very obvious what he is talking about. It's harder to describe in words, but i'll try - because I don't think he is wrong at all.
Analog tape isn't capable of perfect reproduction of sound (however much you may like the sound, it's not a perfect reproduction). Very quiet sounds get masked in noise. Very loud sounds get their transients squashed, so that leaves the middle range where reproduction is at it's best. This is illustrated by a picture of a skyscraper, that is very blurry at the bottom and at the top, but is very clear in the middle section.
Digital audio isn't capable of perfect reproduction of sound either. Very quiet sounds have to be represented with very few bits, hence the "distortion" of low resolution, grainy digital sound that is under-recorded. Noise is less of a problem, but just because the noise isn't there, doesn't mean that low level sounds are better than low level analog sounds - they are a lot worse, just with less noise. The louder the signal, the better the resolution - right up to the point where clipping takes place. So this is illustrated by a picture of a skyscraper that is very blurry at the bottom, and gets progressively better all the way up to the top, which is clearest.
I'm convinced he is 100% correct, and this is a valid way to compare analog and digital. I expect many people will mis-understand what he is saying - that would be semantic arguments in my view, and missing the point.
It seems to me that hybrid systems of analog and digital are actually having to deal with the worst of both mediums, sadly.
The skyscraper photo analogy actually works best with low quality consumer gear - probably slightly less of an issue with high end stuff. But since it affects consumer playback systems, I think it's highly relevant.
It also highlights to me the stupidity of forcing all your dynamic range into the top 6dB of a CD. Sure - as far as your digital "skyscraper" goes, that is where digital resolution is at it's best. But when you force the audio through the inevitable analog stage (especially cheap stuff), you are forcing it in the top "blurry" part of the analog "skyscraper".
Practically anything that convinces people to mix and master at lower levels, to avoid the "blurry" extremes is going to result in better audio.
FWIW.