Quote:
|
Originally Posted by eliottjames Bob, I respect your work, and maybe I'm just not getting it (I leave the volume set at a comfortable level 95% when I mix) but isn't this method going a long way to end up with the ratshack meter at about 76 dB? Why not just use the meter to determine the volume, set the monitor controller where it makes the meter read 76 dB, and be done with it?
I think the real point is to find a comfortable level and leave it there. Right? |
Thanks. There are lot of people who don't get it. Let me try to explain why turning your monitor control down and up tells you a LOT OF INFORMATION, if you learn how to read it.
THE WATER FAUCET ANALOGY.
Your monitor control (volume control) is like a water facucet. When the incoming PRESSURE is high, you only have to open the faucet a little bit to get a high pressure out. If you put a mark on the water faucet, you can see how much rotation you had to give it to get a certain water pressure out. So the physical POSITION of the faucet combined with a knowledge of the pressure coming out will tell you how much pressure they must be delivering at the street.
Similarly, the amount of attenuation that you apply to your monitor control and the SPL you get out will tell you how much SOUND PRESSURE there is coming in.
Where the analogy breaks down is that in the audio system, there is a fixed peak pressure that's allowed, so some sort of governor (compressor or limiter) must be applied to keep that outgoing pressure from exceeding the "overload" point.
Inthe audio side, I'm talking about how you can assess to a great degree the amount of compression that you must apply to a recording by observing your monitor gain control. Assuming you are listening at a given SPL for the same musical passage, and that the musical passage is a busy "pop" or rock recording. The more acoustic the recording, the harder it is to assess, because of the acoustic advantage (no time to talk about that here).
You start with the 83 dB calibration point at -20 dBFS (one speaker). We call that POSITION of the monitor knob "0 dB". At that setting, you can run a very clean and open stereo mix or master without ever getting a medium overload. This position will produce an RMS level of -20 dBFS and an SPL (per speaker) of 83 dB, and a peak level of UP TO 20 dB above that without EVER overloading the digital system. Think about it, you will never have to look at the meter... your monitor control becomes your meter!
Now, turn up your RMS level, say, 6 dB hotter, to -14 dBFS. You are then forced to turn down your monitor gain by 6 dB to get the same SPL. But the peaks of your 20 dB-crest-factor recording will overload the digital system by 6 dB. So you have to get rid of 6 dB worth of peak level or you will overload. And you do that by compressing and/or limiting. And that's why the sound won't be the same, even if the SPL is the same.
This goes on and on.... The more you attenuate your monitor, if you work at the same SPL with the same music, the more you must compress! THUS, (ipso facto they say in Latin) the lower you turn your monitor gain control, the more compression you have to apply. The ability to MEASURE the amount of compression by the position of the control comes from experience, knowledge of the music, and of course, your ears, but this knowledge of how to use the position of the control as part of your toolset puts you ahead of the rest of the gang.
In the 20th century, we set our record (or mastering) levels, and we adjusted our monitor gain so it didn't hurt our ears. In the 21st century, I'm suggesting that engineers have a knowledge of where that monitor gain control is set, for many good reasons, including helping to standardize mastered levels, reduce the pressure for the loudness race, as a tool to help identify when we must be overcompressing, and many more good reasons.
The monitor gain in the film studio is known, fixed, calibrated. I went into a movie theatre the other day and watched a great independent film that had a loud, clean, exceptionally dynamic rock recording/soundtrack. I could tell immediately that they must have had to produce a special mix for this film. Because virtually no currently-released rock recording is this dynamic AND this loud, at this monitor gain. So, by knowing how loud the music is in combination with observing the monitor gain, you can tell a lot about the degree of compression. The snap of the snaredrum and the dynamics of the music gave it away to me. So, knowing your monitor level control's position becomes an integral part of your toolset. If they had instead, took Snoop Dogg, it would have sounded much too loud peaking to full scale. They would have had to attenuate its level by 12 to 14 dB and it would have sounded squashed, wimpy, and undynamic besides.
The K-System was not necessary in the days of analog audio OR ANY medium with a standardized average record level. Our digital media do not have an average level standard, so my standard for calibrating a 1 dB/step monitor in combination with good ears/monitors and acoustics becomes our measurement standard for the 21st century. The meters also help :-)
I hope this helps, at least a little bit.