Calibrating monitors

[pilahaka]

I'm trying to find a good monitoring level for mixing. I read this article:

Bob Katz Article

I followed the suggestion to play -20 dBFS pink noise through the monitors and use an SPL meter set at "C-weighted, slow" to find 83db.

I placed the SPL meter near where my ears are and slowly raised the volume on the left speaker until the SPL measured 83db. Then I did the same for the right. This seems very loud to me.

I lowered the level 6db. And took note of the spot on my attenuator. Then I put a song on loop and slowly raised the volume. I couldn't get anywhere near the "calibrated" setting without it being way to loud for comfort. Mine and my neighbors. It sounded quite harsh.

If I measure the pink noise with both speakers on, the 83 db level seems more sane. It ends up being around 86-87db on material that peaks at -3dBFS. That still sounds a bit loud and liable to cause fatigue, to me, but it won't piss off the neighbors.

Is the material I'm playing mixed to peak at too high a level and that's why it sounds too loud to me?

Or am I doing something wrong in my measuring?

Thanks for the help.

[Ethan Winer]

> I couldn't get anywhere near the "calibrated" setting without it being way to loud for comfort. Mine and my neighbors. It sounded quite harsh. <

If you're playing music that you know is mixed well and otherwise sounds good, the harshness may well be caused by your room acoustics. Do you have any treatment in there now?

--Ethan

[pilahaka]

Originally Posted by Ethan Winer

> I couldn't get anywhere near the "calibrated" setting without it being way to loud for comfort. Mine and my neighbors. It sounded quite harsh. <

If you're playing music that you know is mixed well and otherwise sounds good, the harshness may well be caused by your room acoustics. Do you have any treatment in there now?

--Ethan

Boatloads of room treatment. Something like 20 bass traps. Some diffusors. It's a small room. Harsh was probably the wrong word. Uncomfortably loud is more appropriate. If I step back from the monitors, it sounds good, but then it's not 83 SPL either. I just can't sit at my workstation at the full volume without feeling like I want to be somewhere else.

I was playing some scratch tracks in my DAW that are not mixed well at all. I was mainly playing them because they peaked at -3 dBFS, which was the loudest thing I had, without importing a CD track.

I could not possibly mix for very long at the level I'm hearing. So, my question is am I measuring improperly or is this the point of the process... to make me mix things to a lower peak level and not to -3dBFS.

Thanks for the input.

[bob katz]

Originally Posted by pilahaka

I'm trying to find a good monitoring level for mixing. I read this article:

Dear Pilahaka: Every recording is different. Think of your monitor gain control as having a 0 dB gain for that 83 dB setting. This will produce a VERY VERY LOUD sound when reproducing most commercial recordings made today and is only suitable for extremely dynamic recordings which are truly K-20. You will DEFINITELY have to attenuate significant amounts (turn down your monitor gain) to play back more compressed material. Take a look at the honor roll at digido.com for an example of how the monitor gains must be reduced as the amount of compression in the material increases. Then include about 2-3 dB for personal sensitivity and distance of the monitors from your ears...

Snoop Dogg comes in about -13 to -15 on my monitor gain, if this helps...

Hope this helps,

BK

[pilahaka]

Thanks. I'll take a look at the site. And read the article in more detail. I figured I was missing something.

[parissound]

This is such bull.
You can mix a low levels and check your mix at 80dbs when you are close then bring it back down.

I mix a very low levels and it makes a difference in my mixes. I go home with less ringing in my ears and a great mix.

Just remember to check your mixes at higher levels for the length of the song and you should be fine.

Bob Katz is on the money as usual.

Thanks Bob.

[Thomas W. Bethe]

Over compressed music is hard to listen to at high volume levels. It is very fatiguing even for brief periods. Classical music can have a dynamic range that exceeds 16 bit technology but can be listened to at louder levels and not be fatiguing. The difference to me is in having some space around the music, having music that is dynamic and goes from a whisper (FFF) to a triple forte (PPP) and gives your ears some rest time throughout the piece.

We do mostly acoustical music but I have done my share of rap and hip hop and after a while listening stops being fun and starts to be fatiguing especially if the music is over compressed and/or over eq'd in the bass region.

We have technology that allows us to utilize more than 100 dB of dynamic range but lately most pop stuff is only using the 3 to 6% of that dynamic range.

FWIW

[Killahurts]

Originally Posted by Thomas W. Bethe

We have technology that allows us to utilize more than 100 dB of dynamic range but lately most pop stuff is only using the 3 to 6% of that dynamic range.

Most people only use 3 to 6% of their brain too, so I guess that makes sense

[Hagen Daaz]

Originally Posted by Thomas W. Bethe

We have technology that allows us to utilize more than 100 dB of dynamic range but lately most pop stuff is only using the 3 to 6% of that dynamic range.

Yes, last week, during some mastering demonstration to 9 audio students visiting my place, I played one mix at 24 bits and the same mix at 8 bits (L2 dither, no gain nor limiting added). No one sayed a word about the difference trough the whole song. (Of course I omit the begining and end of the song, where the noise was obvious.)

PS: ok, the listeners were not so experienced, but in the end, they are final consumers, and they were in very good enviroment.
Music piece was a kind of Pantera song.