Thought of the day

[Chris A]

So you wouldn't really mix at reference levels, or mix at concert levels.

Really? This is kind of a big factor, for the reasons that you mention (F-M curves). Interesting, could I ask why one would not mix + master at "concert levels" (assuming acoustic/non-amplified performance of source music, e.g., orchestras)?

Went through this with Al K once, and he got in a huff.

What was the disagreement over?

Was Al K. ever a recording, mix, or mastering guy? I recall that you were in at least one of these roles in an earlier life, so I'm listening intently...since I haven't been a pro myself.

Chris

[garyrc]

... Due to the Fletcher-Munson curve, studios used to have playback/monitoring/mix levels between 70-85db. (I would have to look that up to make sure). If mixed that way and you played it back at a lower level, your bass would drop off. Played back at higher levels, the bass wouldn't necessarily increase much.

So you wouldn't really mix at reference levels, or mix at concert levels

Is this different when mixing movies rather than music intended for CDs. SACDs, etc.?

In some of the Q & A online, Chris of Audyssey seems to imply that with properly set up Audyssey the home SPL will automatically be the intended level, at least for movies in the home [He also outlines an alternative way to set this up with very efficient speakers, like most of ours, because some efficient speakers would produce test tones way too loud at 0; this method involves starting out with an approx -20 dB setting of the volume control, before measurement, rather than the 0 specified for speakers of average efficiency]. In either case, once set up, if one advances the volume control to the setting used for the standardized level previously used in set up (say, 0, for people who set up for average efficiency speakers), one should be hearing the movie at the intended level (this level is rather high -- THX measured 110 dB peaks in one of their tests). So, wouldn't the mixers almost have to use this standard (high) level in the control room in order to not be decieved by the Fletcher - Munsen effect?

I have heard that there is no established reference SPL level procedure for setting up a music -- not movie -- control room, and that the "loudness wars" further complicate the matter. If that is true, and given the F-M effect, how in the world do mixers know what they are doing?[]

[Marvel]

So you wouldn't really mix at reference levels, or mix at concert levels.

Really? This is kind of a big factor, for the reasons that you mention (F-M curves). Interesting, could I ask why one would not mix + master at "concert levels" (assuming acoustic/non-amplified performance of source music, e.g., orchestras)?

Went through this with Al K once, and he got in a huff.

What was the disagreement over?

Was Al K. ever a recording, mix, or mastering guy? I recall that you were in at least one of these roles in an earlier life, so I'm listening intently...since I haven't been a pro myself.

Chris

Chris,

I suppose a lot of this will be subjective. As Gary points out, what is done for movie sound tracks could be so totally different than a straight up music recording. My statement at the time (with Al K.) was that music was mixed at x playback levels, and that playing them back a much lower levels would cause the bass to be substantially lower in level, compared to the rest of the mix. This could also affect how an acoustic huitar may sound in relation to piano, flute, etc. Al just said, and I'm paraphrasing a little, that he didn't want an engineer/producer dictating what levels he need to listen to for the the recording to sound right.

If you think about it, it really makes sense, and why so much early gear had 'loudness' settings. After all, crank that rock album up loud through the LaScalas and the bass sounds much better. It's not got anything to do with the LS at that point, but how our hearing works.

You could probably do the same by turning down the volume on your Jubilees or KHorns, and notice the bass drop off. If the mix/playback levels are done close to what you listen to, you will be hearing more acurately what they intended.

Reference THX/movies. etc., are a whole different story, as Gary points out.

Was Al K. ever a recording, mix, or mastering guy?

Not as far as I know. I also don't know what his listening levels are in his home either. I usually around 80-90db, which means music should be about right. It sure doesn't mean I can't crank it up more.

I can't remember the Recording Handbook's author. It's on the shelf at home. It wasn't John Woram or Alan Kefauver, although they may mention this in their books. I'll try to reference it tonight when I get home.

Bruce

[Chris A]

Thanks Bruce.

A novice, just trying to understand. When you look closely at a technical profession, the issues and compromises get clearer. I've always wanted to understand the recording/mixing/mastering process, the tools, and the decisions more. That will help me correct issues. EQ that can be switched in for certain recordings is a good idea. Mikebse2a3 has a thread on a "Cello clone" setup using a Behringer DEQ2496 in the loop when needed. I've got one of those units in a closet somewhere that I think that I'll drag out.

In fact, I could tweak the Dx38 already in the loop with the Jubs

It's interesting that many on the forum believe that nothing should be EQed. I've found that's not true... [][]

Chris

[Don Richard]

I didn't know that you were a recording/mix/mastering guy. Are you still active?

Not since 1978. I worked part time as a tracking engineer doing mostly jingles and radio commercials in a studio that had a complete 8 track Studer setup. The owner did the mixes and there was no mastering for what we were doing. I've kept in touch over the years with some of the guys I worked with and have had the opportunity to sit in and watch mixdown sessions in newer studios and check out the newer gear from time to time. So much different than 1978.

[garyrc]

... It's interesting that many on the forum believe that nothing should be EQed. I've found that's not true..

I don't get it either. The only two reasons for not EQing from time to time I can think of are:

• Wanting to hear exactly what the mixer heard after the artists & producers approved it ....BUT
  that assumes a) that other hands have not altered the mix -- or
  mandated that it be altered --- sometimes for misguided reasons thought
  to be commercial That time and care was spent to make the sound as
  good as possible c) that the frequency response of the studio monitors
  and thecontrol room resembles that of the home.
• To minimize the circuitry between the the medium and the listener BUT
  that takes a back seat to overall balance when the CD, SACD, DVD or
  Blu-ray is just plain out of balance, IMO. Most of Yo Yo Ma's
  recordings are fine, but the Bach Suites don't have enough high treble,
  so I compensate. Tellingly, whenever the TV special is aired, with the same original recordings, heard in our home over the same
  sound system, we find that THEY have turned up the treble before
  broadcasting, just as we do, so we play the TV special FLAT. Very often
  when a classic movie (from the magnetic soundtrack era, when mag stereo
  was often warm and dynamic) is released on disk the bass is missing,
  perhaps because they use the original music elements which are recorded
  with microphones set for bass roll off. The mixers may not have a good,
  intact version of the actual final magnetic film mix (with music,
  dialog & effects) that incorporated the sweetening and artistic
  decisions of the filmmakers. In those days, they often restored bass
  response to the loud passages. .

I generally listen
to the disk all the way through with everything FLAT or in bypass, ONCE,
just to see if it sounds good that way, then with certain disks (maybe
about half) I apply EQ at will.

[Marvel]

Chris,

I found the thread I was remembering.

http://forums.klipsch.com/forums/t/134670.aspx?PageIndex=1

I think Al reinforces my point, even if he didn't mean to. The book I reeferenced was Modern Recording Techniques by Robert E. Runstein, Howard W. Sams & Co., Inc. My edition is 1974, so it's still pretty much in the analogue era, very little digital in it.

Bruce

[Chris A]

Recording Studio Design, Second Edition: I believe that this author probably represents a "middle of the road" source on the subject: not formally trained in engineering/physics initially, learned the ropes by doing it in popular/rock genres, then learning more from someone that he considered a mentor/guru. Pragmatic approaches seem to be frequent. I haven't fully read it but I've seen some ideas that clarify, particularly in the use of less-than-optimal loudspeakers and room acoustics. I'm thinking that I'm going to find a lot more of interest along the lines of "compromising" as I get some time to digest more.

One of the things that I have to say about Toole's book is that he really didn't make it as easy as he probably should have for the reader. Although the language is usually clear, the concepts and graphs tell a different story. Sometimes I have to work very hard to understand and fully consider Toole's points. More often than not I'm not successful in seeing things his way. Toole talks frequently about topics that overlap recording studio design.

Contrasting this, Newell's book is easier to understand in terms of concepts and graphics as if he is chunking the information much more effectively, not presenting graphics that detract from his points, or otherwise create uncertainties in the reader's mind. It reads much faster but at the same time isn't dumbed down. However, it doesn't go into the detail that Toole does. Toole makes you think and challenges you in just about every chapter but he doesn't always discuss all the points in text that he should to make his points clear, sometimes resorting to language that is less precise than he should.

Chris