Calibration

[AUDIOSFX]

...yet another path to lead you down...

Curious at what spl you cal to Charles and
if room tuning is high on your agenda..

I am an x-THX dude and did hundreds of calibrations and find film standard non x-curve works well for my room. 85db -20
+4=ovu

I have talked to a few colleagues who mix music and are caling to 90db at -14 +4 =ovu...

very very loud...

"if you don't monitor loud how do you know what quiet is"
(famous mixer)

-ws

[AUDIOSFX]

does anybody calibrate?....Im shocked...
I've had very little response to this question by any music guys what so ever..

It could possibly be a very real reason people have a hard time translating mixes from room to room and subjective sound issues..

hhhmmm.. curious...
-ws

[Rail Jon Rogut]

I always calibrate at -18dBfs = 0VU

Rail

[5down1up]

-14dbfs=0vu works for me most of the time

[AUDIOSFX]

what spl 85db c or 90?

and thank you very much this is what I'm getting at..I think with more post we will see how varied this is, and the crazy issues it can create...

Charles any comments?

Jules?

[AUDIOSFX]

131 people have looked at this thread and only 2 have replied...very scary..Calibration is a very impotant part of what we do as engineers...My whole point of this was to see how varied the responses are in music and adopting a standard to promote heatlhy translation...

Tascam defaults -16 for most of their gear... film guys use -20 and music guys anywhere from -14 to -20 so my point in addition to all this is at what spl (sound pressure level) you pink your rooms at.

85db L 85db R is standard for film..
I have guys caling at 90db for music....thats average level of monitoring not including peaks..

Which means at - 14 your peaks will be 104db> or greater...

remember tha pain threshold is only a few more db up from 104..

Does that help...?

In addition to the question posed initially do you feel monitoring at catastrophicly loud levels helps your mix...Or are you perceiveing distortion not induced by the tape,outboard gear,or plugs...

hhmmm...

[Charles Dye]

AudioSFX,

Sorry for not answering earlier. My experience in post work is less than zilch (my spellchecker actually has "zilch" in it + I apparently spelled it right my first guess), but if I understand your initial question you are asking @ what level I calibrate my monitors. Is that correct?

Assuming it is, my answer is that in music mixing I, or any other mixing engineers I know, never discuss this question. I don't even know the answer to how loud I mix in dBs. In music mixing we talk about mixing in very imprecise terms like quiet, medium, loud, + ear-bleedin' loud (the last one is for clients only, completely useless to us when mixing).

Based on your questions, I'm assuming that it is important in post work to mix @ a calibrated level because your initial end consumer (theaters) have a relatively consistent volume range that their audio playback systems are set to. And therefore it makes sense for you to approximate that level when mixing, so you can make sure you will be creating dynamics that will be reproduced in the theater as you intend them to be. (I'm just guessing about all of this.) IOW, you need to duplicate in the studio the way your mixes will be heard by the consumer.

Well, in music mixing we have to do exactly the same thing. We have to duplicate the way our consumers monitor our mixes... and unlike @ movie theaters ours all have volume knobs. (See where I'm going with this?) So, since our mixes will be heard at quiet, medium, loud, + ear-bleedin' loud levels (and again, this last one doesn't count, because everything sounds great loud*) we need to make sure our work sounds good at all levels.

Most mixers will agree that mixing quietly (sorry for the imprecision again) is the most productive. You can hear details better, make balance adjustments more accurately, and hear distortion + other problems easier. But I still listen at medium + loud levels, because I find it easier to check other aspects of the mix like power + punch. Also, getting basic kick + snare sounds is much easier to do at a loud playback level. I need to feel the kick + snare hitting, smacking me in the chest. And when I do, I know it's right and I go back to listening quietly again.

Do other music mixers agree with this approach to monitoring?


*BTW--the reason everything sounds so much better at a loud or really loud volume (and why it's not productive to spend too much time mixing there) is because our ears have built in compressors, even a kind of saturation, that just makes the music sound better. (Our brain clearly likes compression + saturation, we all know by now.) So, that's why it's important to get the mix pumping at a lower volume, with the compression and saturation coming from what we're doing at the console, and not the consumers ears.

[AUDIOSFX]

Well spoken and yes monitoring is the ultimate question. I find that consistancy in mixing from room to room helps us translate what we are doing better and would benefit music as well. In post there is no guarantee that what we mix will play back at cal or even steered to the right channel, I feel you there... If one tracks at say a specific cal and then mixes elsewhere it would seem logical that a set up or "cal" relationship would make a difference.

Now that you took the bate, The real world listens to things at every level...

The same would apply to dvds/ videos and other media yet we still cal our rooms for each application...

Why would'nt music benefit from this consistancy....

soap box dismantled....

[AUDIOSFX]

oh yes I almost forgot to mention... Multichannel environments are going to need to be callibrated I am working on a DVD music mix and this issue will be very very important to those interested in doing surround mixes...

I dont beleive the market is yeilding any real fruit for multichannel music but I must say it is very nice to mix to more than a stereo image...

[5down1up]

ur totaly right sfx !

getting the idea about calibration changed my soundresults dramatically ... and i am looking forward to recalibrate to -18dbfs again , maybe less .

dynamics one of the most effective tool imho .
sadly i dont have an spl meter at hand right now ...
i had setted it up @ 85 db .

i am still rebuilding my place but i will measure and recalibrate soon .

[AUDIOSFX]

I think it is very smart to do and can only help not only mix but the translation of other mixes to your environment.

Kind along the lines of Charles shareing ideas on mixing... calibration will let us interpret others mixes as well and have a better understanding of them..

so for the record
1k at -20 = 0Vu @ +4

Film is pink at 85db LCR 82 Ls Rs Sub is 89

DVD A should be the same as above with Ls Rs 85 db

anyone have any other ideas or theory's?

[Bloodz]

I heard 87 db was the magic number and that some engineers rely on db meters to find this "sweet spot" to mix at. I was told not all frequencies are humanly detectable below this range and when mixing at 87db the human ear can articulate the greatest number of frequencies in range possible.

[AUDIOSFX]

sounds possible but what is the source of your info?

85 is very close and I find very acurate as well as the entire film industry...


cool thats interesting info...


-ws

[Charles Dye]

Just another opinion:

These mixing tips are from Bob Clearmountain's MixThis.com website. Regarding monitor volume check out his approach in #3.

1. Use your imagination. Listen carefully to cool sounding stuff on your favorite records, try to imagine what the mixer did to get it, then come up with your own version. It may end up better than what you were trying to duplicate, and it will be original.

2. When mixing, don't start with the drums - start with the vocal. Find an environment (verb, delays, etc.) and a sound (eq, dynamics, etc.) for the vocal that suits the lyric and the general mood of the song, then build your mix around that.

3. Listen to your mix on as many different sets of speakers as you can get your hands on, and keep changing monitor levels randomly. Ironically, the only type of speakers that really mean nothing for pop & rock record mixing are large, soffet-mounted studio monitors. Believe it or not, I find the easiest speakers to judge vocal, bass and bass drum levels & eq are my little self-powered Apple computer speakers, that, of course they stopped making.

4. When you start to feel like you can't make a decision about something - can't see the forest for the trees, take a 20 minute break. Go for a walk, get something to eat, you might even try to take a short nap. When you return to your mix things will be clearer. If possible, instead of finishing a mix at two in the morning, leave it up over night. First thing in the morning you'll immediately know what's wrong.

5. Don't do anything I say because I'm generally full of crap.

Pretty funny guy. Really great tips. Brilliant eff'n mixer.

Check out his website, it's got a lot of great info on it.

Personally, I do the majority of my mixing @ a pretty low volume + for the same reasons mentioned in Bloodz post. I just don't know if it's 87 dB or not.

[5down1up]

i always liked & like your kinda phylosophical opinions @ charles .
what i like even more is the discovery of Bobs webiste ...
didnt even know he has one ...



thx charles

[AUDIOSFX]

Hes a riot and a great engineer...good find Charles..


My thoughts along these topic lines are really for pushing us to mix in 5.1 or beyond. In that case calibration is essential and I know that you have dabbled or at least entertained the idea. I would really love to hear your multi -channel mixes and see where your coming from. I find it very easy to control without over hyping compression and stereo image because you have a much wider space to mix in...talk about emotion..the environment is encompassing...

keep the responses coming guys ..Its a very interesting topic...


-ws

[Mazaga]

take a look at this:

Approach to Metering, Monitoring, and Leveling Practices

http://www.digido.com/portal/pmodule...der_page_id=59

best, mazaga

[AUDIOSFX]

What a great piece of information thank you very much..


I think in small environments 83db is smart and even lower depending on room volume. These theorys are great and
Bob Katz is a very wise man.

But more he hits on relative loudness..I think is another subject and a thread which I will start now..

-ws

[djui5]

I normally mix at moderatly low levels. I had a producer ask me once, "why do you listen so quite? You gotta crank it up". He's loosing his hearing.

I like to monitor where it's comfortable for me. I crank it up sometimes later in the mix just to see what happens, and I also monitor just over the noise floor to check balance. I don't know what SPL it is..I could care less, when it's comfortable, I'm comfortable. Too loud irritates me. I used to assist an engineer who monitored very loud and always wondered why his mixes came out different than what he wanted, so I showed him how much better it is to monitor at moderate levels. Not to mention that you can work a lot longer like that...

[Mazaga]

I think when you calibrate all your setup the main difference is that your VU reference will change...so the level of your mix will be another. This change the hole situation, don´t?

I´m used to work with DAW and digital mixer along with analog outboards. This way my master VU is PEAK and not RMS. When it goes to zero there is nothing above!

Calibrating my monitor setup is a way to get more headroom, I understand...

comments?...

thx

[Nathanael]

Calibrating your setup is a way to get consistency more than headroom.

I'm just putting the trim up in my new room. It will be calibrated. I am planning to start with Katz's -20 @ 83 and see how that is.

Calibration will give me the ability to reference all my work to a common standard. This will help me know EXACTLY what is happening with my work over time.

I want to know when the volume control is at it's "home" position, precisely what that means.

Happily, the volume control also turns if I want more or less. I just want one position that I KNOW has a fixed, repeatable meaning with real world relevance. Given a stepped attenuator, it is possible to know what the other positions mean as well. Calibration and metering are not luxuries.

The thing you just can't ignore is that the THX standard is not arbitrary. It represents thousands of hours of research into "how loud is loud, and how loud is too loud". I find the arguments for calibration compelling and will implement them myself within a week.

[AUDIOSFX]

Nathanael,

Great post..It is very true and should be accepted. I do feel that music engineers would benefit the most from calibration due to the facts as stated in the url its radically different in every environment...
ANd it also leads to the relative loudness issue which is yet another can o worms..

-ws

[AUDIOSFX]

Mazaga,

Thats the whole point... Knowing what loud is... and having dynamic range in mixes..(albeit genre specific).. Having head room is a good thing and will enable you to branch out to multi channel mixing and a better listening environment.

It can only benefit you..


-ws

[Bruce Keen]

I don't really get the calibration thing for media where the end user can change his volume level. To me the interest of having a calibrated level was in film mixing where monitoring at the same level as the audience is very important (even then a lot of cinemas cheat and playback louder). I try to monitor at all kind of levels and switch speakers every half hour. If it translates on all it's done. I use my arp2600 for tuning levels. I kind of got used to it's crappy speakers.

Could someone please explain the idea behind monitoring at a reference level when the end user is going to adjust to his own taste anyway. Don't you change SPL constantly when switching monitors (large small mini)?

Having assisted Mr Clearmountain years ago I can attest that NS10s were his main monitor and that he knows them inside out and also that he's brilliant. Even if it's got nothing to do with this thread I really like tip 2 starting with the vocal. I've had great fun doing that on soft tracks. On harder stuff I try Kick bass Vox. An extension to that great tip might be to break habits as soon as they settle in.

As far as digital levels are concerned I calibrate-16db=0VU which I find comfortable for mutitrack. Is there any pseudo standard now?

[AUDIOSFX]

Great questions and comments Bruce,

The idea really stemmed from moving the sound content around editorial and dubbing stages. In addition translation to the cinema. I actually find cinema playing lower than the calibration level because films have also become loudness challenged.....

Music does'nt have this anomolie due to one guy usually mixing songs. Unless those songs are 90 to 120 minutes long. Then multiple engineers and mixers would probably work on them. or different songs mixed by different engineers possibly...

The standard is actually smpte's which THX adopted and put a wee spin on utilizing their proprietary crossovers and "certified A chain"..

The reality is the research done was extensive. And that monitor calibration ultimatly translated to many evironments well..i.e. Bob Katz article on calibration....Or Tomlinson Holmans numerous publications and theories.

It also shows relative issue problems we have in music...you can monitor a severly compressed slammin track because your not listening to how very very loud it is...

I don't deny that we have very irradic and personal ways to acheive "the sound" we are hired to acheive but it kind of falls into the catagory of "bad habits" tend to follow us around.


The smpte standard for callibration in fiilm is...


85 db c weighted bandlimited pink L C R

82 db c weighted bandlimited pink Ls Rs

LFE 87-90 db c weighted

1khz @ -20 =0VU @ +4

digital world

Digi defaults to -18
Tascam Defaults to -16

and the anomolies are everywhere

Remember smaller rooms will sum and therefore should be cal'd at lower volumes...see the url .....http://www.digido.com/portal/pmodul...dder_page_id=59


If any of us plan to mix in multi channel be it quad / 5.1/LCRS all of which are incredibly dynamic and just plain fun to do. Calibration is going to be a necessity.
A. Because of the encodeing process.

B. Monitor relationships in a multi
speaker environment.

C.Translation to other mix rooms.

D. Consumer end translation..

The car will probably be the first wide music multi channel distribution point. Most cars already have 4 or 5 speakers..
as well as home theater set ups...

And yes all environments get attenuated and all environments have different speakers...It does not mean calibration won't be effective at our level.

It gives us all a point of reference...

-ws

[Bruce Keen]

Most interesting. the bob katz paper is great. And thank you for your most detailed answers. I have to let all this sink in. I've finally landed my first 5.1 gig on a big budget movie in november and all this information is really solid.
The only problem is translating this calibration scheme in to the real world of everyday mixing. I've never heard of or seen (stereo) mix engineers calibrate to a set level before.
A lot of food for thought.
Cheers

[MJGreene Audio]

When I mix music I usually keep it pretty soft. I went to a AES discussion about 15 years ago and they had Clearmountain and Massenburg among others on the panel and when they were asked about monitoring they both said they listen very quiet. Massenburg I believe said in the 65 db range for levels and that he would crank it at times to hear what the bottom end was doing. Clearmountain agreed and said that he monitors very soft. At that time I was in the bigger louder better phase of my very early career and figured I would give it a whirl. Man what a difference it made. I was able to mix faster and better because I was hearing very small level changes and not blowing my ears out. I could naturally work longer and get more consistent results. I always try to keep it at about 85db for general sounds and levels, and then I go very soft on a mono speaker or NS-10's for vocals and other critical levels. It is amazing what you hear. Most people I work with can't believe how soft I monitor. I just tell them to spin up the volume whenever they want and then I go get another cup of coffee. There are situations when you have almost no choice but to monitor loud. Rythm sections, Brass, etc. But when it comes to mixing critical stuff then you will have great success with a lower level.
Do yourself a favor and pull out your SPL meter when your mixing and see where your levels are. You might be very surprised and frightened at how loud you are listening. I would like to be doing this for a living when I am 50 and if I listen for 8-14 hours a day at 100+DB I will be lucky if I am doing it when I am 40. Save your ears and give yourself better results.

OK now I will get off my soapbox.

Michael Greene

[AUDIOSFX]

I am glad this is enlightening to some...

It is smart to cal and if you mix for film imperitive.

I agree that mixing music is a very touchy subject and people have their habits, its just wise sometimes to look at it from a differrent perspective...


-ws

[cannikin]

This is great, I have following this thread since the first post, which lead to a lot of reading on calibrating my console and DAW.

keep the information comin'

[AUDIOSFX]

another url for ya'll


http://www.surroundassociates.com/spkrcal.html


More to follow

-ws

Oh yes even with free cal material..and Pascal is also a former THX dude...

http://www.abluesky.com/p_s_gb/p5s10.html