Speaker calibration when mixing to -9 dB FS peaklevel

[ggegan]

tpad's description of processes is actually pretty accurate, but he errs when he implies that intersample peak and true peak are meaningless measurements. The networks have chosen to require vendors to deliver product that falls within specific true peak or intersample limits, therefore the measurement is relevant, if for no other reason than they say so. Getting into a semantics discussion about it is really pointless.

[Henchman]

Originally Posted by tpad

If anyone's credibility is questionable, it certainly isn't mine.

Until you sign with your real name, like everyone here, you're credibility will most certainly be considered questionable.

[tpad]

I'm still waiting to see where I've suggested that Hollywood has some "secret sauce".

I do recall mentioning that Jay Rose had stated in a presentation that he was giving locally, that he did go out there to work awhile ago and noticed that they did seem to have a "process" that everyone seemed to be following to achieve uniform sound production quality. How this gets twisted into "Hollywood's secret sauce" is beyond me. In any case, I wasn't making the statement, just repeating what I had heard.

Several of you seem intent on turning this discussion into a cluster f--k. You would be well advised to go do it with somebody else, because all you are managing to do is make fools of yourselves.

[tpad]

...Until you sign with your real name, like everyone here, you're credibility will most certainly be considered questionable....

That's pretty arrogant to say the least, because this isn't your website and you're not an official spokesman for the website or the forum, and I really could care less what you and several of the other pundits around here consider as being credible.

[Henchman]

Originally Posted by tpad

I'm still waiting to see where I've suggested that Hollywood has some "secret sauce".

I do recall mentioning that Jay Rose had stated in a presentation that he was giving locally, that he did go out there to work awhile ago and noticed that they did seem to have a "process" that everyone seemed to be following to achieve uniform sound production quality. How this gets twisted into "Hollywood's secret sauce" is beyond me. In any case, I wasn't making the statement, just repeating what I had heard.

Several of you seem intent on turning this discussion into a cluster f--k. You would be well advised to go do it with somebody else, because all you are managing to do is make fools of yourselves.

I copied and pasted yor exact statement.

Furthermore, in this particular sub forum, if you want to be taken seriously, you sign with your name.
If not, you're simply considered another armchair, teenage basement hobbyist with no professional experience to back up your statements.

In short, a troll.

[ggegan]

The only "secret sauce" that Hollywood mixers may have is experience, and lots of it. Anyone can study and understand technical information, and Hollywood definitely has no monopoly on creativity. However, there is a lot to be said for sheer volume and breadth of experience. That is something that is difficult to attain in the film industry unless you live in a city that produces a lot of product. It can also become a liability if you become blind to innovation that comes from sources that are less invested in current commercial conventions.

I have heard some really innovative and high quality soundtracks coming from all over the world, including locales that don't turn out a lot of product. Sometimes it isn't particularly polished by Hollywood standards, but it more than makes up for it by the uniqueness of concept and raw creativity. We each have our own "secret sauce" and it gets better when we try to deconstruct other people's "secret sauce".

Still, I think it would be wise to consider the practical experience that comes from those who work in major media centers.

[tpad]

Fortunately, the forum doesn't revolve around you. If you want to insist on continuing with the name calling (i.e. troll), I can always send a message to the website administration. I know what the rules are, because we've already had a little chat in the past regarding the practice.

[Henchman]

Originally Posted by tpad

Fortunately, the forum doesn't revolve around you. If you want to insist on continuing with the name calling (i.e. troll), I can always send a message to the website administration. I know what the rules are, because we've already had a little chat in the past regarding the practice.

I didn't say it revolves around me. It's simply a rule those of us here in this sub forum have adopted.
And spare me your threats. As I didn't call you specifically a troll. Your reading comprehension skills obviously leave somewhat to be desired.
And your response has all the hallmarks of immaturity.
" I'm going to go tell Dad"

[audionuma]

By the way, BS 1770 is now on it's third revision, BS.1770.
What has been added are filter coefficients for the true-peak measurement at 48 KHz ;-)
A bit off topic, though ...

[baldrian]

Well thanks for so much input...
To clarify the scenario: The edits we are talking about are for tv and internet. It is motorsports and editing takes place on location, so circumstances for the editors are horrible, several workstations in the same room, also a lot of other noisy gear like vtrs, fileserver, oh and racecars passing by the building... Most of the time the editors are working on headphones, i just would like them to listen to their mix again when their screening it with the producer before they pass it through to the injest and we are doing our internal quaility controll. I know nobody has time and things simply have to work, so i thought it might help to have a unified monitoring level, so nobody has to adapt to changes in loudness. I was just not sure if calibrating to -79 dB spl works if you do not mix by ear or loudness based metering but max peaklevel at -9 dB fs.
Would be great if anybody who worked for tv in europe before they made the change to loudness based metering could give me a hint on how editsuits were calibrated back than...

btw i dont care for intersample peaks, edits go straight from fcp via hd sdi with audio embedded to evs from there via aes/ebu to a digital desk and the built in limiters are perfectly capable of avoiding any audible distortion caused by intersample peaks, side effects of too much compressing/limiting caused by too high overall level are another story...

[Henchman]

Well, for TV your ill have to adhere to the new specs that are at this point law, if I'm force.
So, you want to be mixing at 79 , but also have a loudness measuring plugin, so it won't get rejected by the broadcaster.

[nzl62]

Henchman speketh the truth. But I fin 79 a touch loud for broadcast if in a smaller room.
76 worked better for me, just took the edge off and encouraged a slightly more "robust" mix. Everyone wants their shit louder right !

[tom_lowe]

Originally Posted by nzl62

Everyone wants their shit louder right !

Not if you fail QC for missing loudness targets you don't

[huub]

Originally Posted by baldrian

Would be great if anybody who worked for tv in europe before they made the change to loudness based metering could give me a hint on how editsuits were calibrated back then...

No calibration, just a PPM meter.

[UnderTow]

Originally Posted by baldrian

Well thanks for so much input...
To clarify the scenario: The edits we are talking about are for tv and internet. It is motorsports and editing takes place on location, so circumstances for the editors are horrible, several workstations in the same room, also a lot of other noisy gear like vtrs, fileserver, oh and racecars passing by the building... Most of the time the editors are working on headphones, i just would like them to listen to their mix again when their screening it with the producer before they pass it through to the injest and we are doing our internal quaility controll. I know nobody has time and things simply have to work, so i thought it might help to have a unified monitoring level, so nobody has to adapt to changes in loudness. I was just not sure if calibrating to -79 dB spl works if you do not mix by ear or loudness based metering but max peaklevel at -9 dB fs.
Would be great if anybody who worked for tv in europe before they made the change to loudness based metering could give me a hint on how editsuits were calibrated back than...

btw i dont care for intersample peaks, edits go straight from fcp via hd sdi with audio embedded to evs from there via aes/ebu to a digital desk and the built in limiters are perfectly capable of avoiding any audible distortion caused by intersample peaks, side effects of too much compressing/limiting caused by too high overall level are another story...

I work at different studios mixing for the new R128 norm and for the old -9 dBFS peak norm (I do work for the NL, BE, UK, IE, DE, PL, AT, CZ, RO and HU markets currently). Personally what I find most important isn't so much that the level is calibrated to a fixed level but that I can recall any level I have gotten used to and find pleasing. It doesn't even have to be in dB SPL as long as I can set the level back accurately. Most studios I work at have Avid Icon's which have a numerical level reading so I just remember the main level setting that works for me in that particular studio. Some are properly calibrated so I can read off the dB SPL setting but most are not so it is just some arbitrary number like "46". That still works for me as long as I can set it to the exact same level before I start working.

Btw, for people in general participating in this thread, broadcasters still using the -9 dB FS norm don't tend to care about inter-sample peaks / TruePeak so that shouldn't be an issue.

PS: Before R128, I never paid too much attention to metering. I found them more of a distraction. So, again personally, wouldn't worry so much about the actual meters used. None will do a better job than human ears and with the older specs, the peak level is what counts most for QC as long as it is a decent mix with enough level.

Alistair

[nzl62]

Originally Posted by tom_lowe

Not if you fail QC for missing loudness targets you don't

well obviously
All I meant is that in smaller rooms 79 is still very loud. Most editors in your run-of-the-mill edit suite may find this a bit much, and the OP was about unifying edit suites for freelancers