how loud do you work?

[achaiss]

I've seen a great paper about a Greg Calbi's session

Greg said that:
“Everybody's got their own level. I think mine's about 100 or 105 dB. I know that it's louder than it should be. We all have our level that we hear our balance on. George Marino listens lower than that. Ted Jensen listens fairly loud,”

... ...

wow... pretty loud, how can they work at that level day after day?
Of course it's only when they master a song, for editing or record it they turn down the volume but... anyway...
impressive!

Any others who work at those levels? Is it not too tiring?
I'm really young compared to Greg C or Ted J and I can't work like this.
I usually work about 75/80dB

[jdg]

83 db too loud?

[edva]

80 to 85 db C weighted.

[achaiss]

Originally Posted by jdg

83 db too loud?

ok 105 seems to be VERY very loud.

[SoundReplay]

Which SPL meters do you guys use to measure your loudspeaker level? I am looking to buy the Phonic PAA3.

[CJ Mastering]

Which SPL meters do you guys use to measure your loudspeaker level?

I have an app on my phone for measuring it. . . . . . Just kidding They dont work!!

I use a galaxy cm 140

[Caj]

Actually I've got mine within 1db. But I had to calibrate it against my rat shack one. Oh yeah, I sit around 83-90db depending on time and duration.

[CJ Mastering]

Originally Posted by Caj

Actually I've got mine within 1db. But I had to calibrate it against my rat shack one. Oh yeah, I sit around 83-90db depending on time and duration.

Mine seems to measure allot louder than my SPL meter. I have not tried calibrating it yet. Maybe I will someday
Cj

[UnderTow]

Originally Posted by achaiss

I've seen a great paper about a Greg Calbi's session

Greg said that:
“Everybody's got their own level. I think mine's about 100 or 105 dB. I know that it's louder than it should be. We all have our level that we hear our balance on. George Marino listens lower than that. Ted Jensen listens fairly loud,”

I have a hard time believing someone works at that level all day long. That is a recipe for hearing damage. Look at this table here: http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/98-126...s/98-126bb.gif

That gives them between 4 and 15 minutes of safe listening...

Alistair

[Cellotron]

Originally Posted by UnderTow

I have a hard time believing someone works at that level all day long. That is a recipe for hearing damage. Look at this table here: http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/98-126...s/98-126bb.gif

That gives them between 4 and 15 minutes of safe listening...

Alistair

From my understanding he doesn't work at that level all day long by any means. Short bursts of listening at extremely loud - followed by lower levels.

Best regards,
Steve Berson

[jackthebear]

What?? Listen to sound??? No-one just looks at RTAs anymore??? We're all going to hell in a handbasket I tell ya!!

[spicemix]

80dbSPL in an untreated room sounds louder to me and likely does more damage than 90dbSPL in a well-treated room. An absolute SPL level taken out of all context doesn't mean anything to me.

You can listen at the reference level that is comfortable to you (as long as you haven't gotten comfortable with damaging levels) so that you don't have to fight your own tendencies to try to get things to that level. Obtaining a full-range system (e.g. with sub) will also help prevent compensation based on spectral distribution (you don't have to slam the entire mix to make the bass pound).

A mastering engineer, as the last point of quality control and standardization, has a better argument for staying at whatever level they feel is most effective than a mixer. A mixer can adjust the levels quite dramatically over the course of a mix to try to take advantage of, or suppress, their own tendencies wrt loudness, and to see if anything is sticking out unpleasantly at various levels.

[UnderTow]

Originally Posted by Cellotron

From my understanding he doesn't work at that level all day long by any means. Short bursts of listening at extremely loud - followed by lower levels.

Best regards,
Steve Berson

Sure I also turn the volume up from time to time to hear how it sounds but 100+ dB is quite loud... Then again, I have walked into (post) studios at times and literally walked straight back out because the levels were instantly painful to me. I guess everyone experiences it differently.

Alistair

[UnderTow]

Originally Posted by spicemix

80dbSPL in an untreated room sounds louder to me and likely does more damage than 90dbSPL in a well-treated room.

How would that work? Surely it is sheer pressure that does the damage regardless of how it is perceived.

I have always wondered about the comments for calibrating depending on room size. If you measure at the listening position, 85dB (or whatever) is 85 dB regardless of room size... Assuming the room is well treated, why would one listen at a lower level in a smaller room? (As measured at the listening position of course. If you measure you speakers at 1m or something like that but the speakers are at different distances from the sweet spot, the levels can be very different but that is a different story).

Obtaining a full-range system (e.g. with sub) will also help prevent compensation based on spectral distribution (you don't have to slam the entire mix to make the bass pound).

Absolutely.

Alistair

[RedTuxedo]

When I mix, I start with my studio level full on, mostly to force me to get my overall levels down. I think I can deal with louder mixing levels all day than similar mastering levels because of sustained volume. With mastering, you are bringing down transients and listening to sustained volume a lot more than mixing, where the transients can be significantly louder than final mastered mixes and probably less more on ear fatigue than mastering volumes...

But that is my own 2¢.

[spicemix]

Originally Posted by UnderTow

How would that work? Surely it is sheer pressure that does the damage regardless of how it is perceived.

My understanding from discussing this with audiologists is that the ear can recover quite well from transient pressure but less well from continuous pressure. Thus the heavy metal distorted guitar is more dangerous to the ear than the nightclub's subwoofer array. In a treated room the transients decay quite quickly while in an untreated one they bounce around on specific frequencies for a much longer time, which I would guess might damage the perception of those frequencies over time.

It's my theory based on some casual conversations. I would like to know more one way or the other.

[Caj]

Quick transient pressure can cause the muscles of the ear to constrict. This makes the amount of moving air going into to the ear drum, sicilia, and cochlea become less. It's our ear's fail safe from quick and loud sounds. I.e gunfire. With continuous level these muscles do not constrict the same. Therefore the damage can be more severe.

[wado1942]

I used to monitor around 73-76dB but my masters wound up sounding really crispy. Now I'm more around 80dB.

[RedTuxedo]

Originally Posted by Caj

Quick transient pressure can cause the muscles of the ear to constrict. This makes the amount of moving air going into to the ear drum, sicilia, and cochlea become less. It's our ear's fail safe from quick and loud sounds. I.e gunfire. With continuous level these muscles do not constrict the same. Therefore the damage can be more severe.

This is true.

This is true.

I must admit that my volume in mixing is at higher levels for shorter periods of time. Generally when mastering, I'm at 75-83 dB for a full day. Mixing is up to 105 for 5-10 minutes at a time until my ears fatigue with 20-30 minute small speaker listening sessions in between....

[UnderTow]

Originally Posted by spicemix

My understanding from discussing this with audiologists is that the ear can recover quite well from transient pressure but less well from continuous pressure. Thus the heavy metal distorted guitar is more dangeous to the ear than the nightclub's subwoofer array.

Isn't this just because we are more sensitive to mid and high range frequencies?

In a treated room the transients decay quite quickly while in an untreated one they bounce around on specific frequencies for a much longer time, which I would guess might damage the perception of those frequencies over time.

But the longer decays would also be picked up by the SPL meter so if you measure the same dB SPL, you have already taken any decay into account.

It's my theory based on some casual conversations. I would like to know more one way or the other.

Me too if anyone has a definitive answer. (Or any ideas).

Alistair

[tedpenn]

105 dB SPL C-weighted on a full range system like I'd assume he's using may not sound that "loud".

However, 105 dB SPL C-weighted on a mix engineer's NS-10's is pretty friggin loud.

It's essential to consider frequency content and weighting when discussing SPL.

Personally, I tend to hang out around 80-85 dB SPL C-weighted when mixing, but sometimes go louder to get "emotionally involved", and softer (and in mono) for some fine adjustments.

[macc]

Eh?

[Ben F]

Listening at those levels there is no doubt in my mind that you would go home with ringing ears. And ringing ears=hearing damage.

I let clients crank it but I'm out of the room. The ATCs go pretty damn loud.

[achaiss]

Originally Posted by Ben F

Listening at those levels there is no doubt in my mind that you would go home with ringing ears. And ringing ears=hearing damage.

I let clients crank it but I'm out of the room. The ATCs go pretty damn loud.

how can they do? Ted and Greg are not 30 years old guys...
And no one can say that they are deaf.

I really couldn't.

[Ben F]

Originally Posted by achaiss

how can they do? Ted and Greg are not 30 years old guys...
And no one can say that they are deaf.

I really couldn't.

Maybe they have hearing Super Powers. It's a medical fact that those levels over extended periods cause hearing damage. Take it or leave it.

[jackthebear]

There's also a natural loss of hearing over the long term as well to take into consideration.....

Still there are many people doing stellar work well into their 60's and I would bet they can't hear above 16K.

Common sense and good management are the key.

Like the others here I give it a bit of a goose from time to time but a I get older I'm appreciating a quieter monitoring regime.

[Silver Sonya]

I have been surprised at how loud some of my favorite producers/engineers/mixing/mastering people monitor when I have had the opportunity to fly-on-the-wall sessions.

Loud seems quite common among the greats, although it's nothing anyone wants to endorse as a general practice. 'Cause it's clearly not healthy for longterm health.

I would love to tell some stories here, but it would read as gossip and not be very helpful to the general discussion.

Suffice it to say, many people we all admire monitor quite loud.

Myself, I monitor very quiet and quite loud. Quiet most of the time and then short stretches at quite loud.

My weird thing is I have a hard time judging anything at a medium volume. Quiet gives me information. Loud gives me information. Medium (at about the level of human speech), it's hard for me to discern balances.

I'm not proud of that. But there ya go.

- c

[Ben F]

Originally Posted by jackthebear

Like the others here I give it a bit of a goose from time to time but a I get older I'm appreciating a quieter monitoring regime.

No that was just a story you made up and told your wife.

[jackthebear]

Originally Posted by Ben F

No that was just a story you made up and told your wife.

oh....so you mean I don't have cancer of the volume knob?

[UnderTow]

Originally Posted by achaiss

how can they do? Ted and Greg are not 30 years old guys...
And no one can say that they are deaf.

Deaf no, but you can have hearing damage (or simply old age wear and tear) and still deliver good work. The important thing is that you hear everything the same way so that you have a good reference to mix/master to. Obviously with hearing damage it affects everything you hear the same way.

Alistair