Audio Monitor calibration - ping Joseph Hanna

[ronmac]

Enjoyable read. Thanks everyone for keeping it going.

[rick-slo]

Originally Posted by Doug Young

I do use lots of meters, and have spent ages poring over every analysis tool I can find to understand phase, stereo spread, frequency response curves, etc, for the type of music I play, so I can pretty much look at the meters and tell you if a solo guitar track was recorded X/Y, spaced pairs, has lots of reverb, etc, etc. That's been more helpful to me for mic placement than anything else, not such a big deal for monitoring. Some meters are useful for EQ, but mostly I don't use that much EQ, I just get a good raw sound from the mic setup, set the right levels, which I can see both from software meters and the meters on my A/D converters, (which seem to be calibrated with each other), and I'm done. Life's pretty simple when all you do is record solo guitar :-)

Ha! I know exactly what you mean Doug.

[Joseph Hanna]

I need to clarify a couple of things

When I speak of meters I speak of calibrated dB meters to monitor recorded material.....absolutely nothing else. Any other analysis type tool has (at least in my world) proven utter hocus pocus.

That said dB meters can obviously shed light on peak levels and average levels and most importantly the difference there in, as well as vividly point out resonate problems that might otherwise be difficult to hear. Meters give me a starting point ref, a mid mix point ref, a nearly finished ref and it saves my job at the lay-back stage as the industry is fairlyunforgiving of output mistakes. In the days that I got started in mixing NO analog console was without some type of metering bridge and we watched that bridge at most stages of the recording process. Metering in the end is not that foreign to mixing.

Now having said that If anyone feels that their recording process is better without the meters than with, or doesn't need to rely on them, I'm totally, totally,1000% behind that I certainly could mix without them. It's simply I don't want to as I rely on the information they provide.

In the end I was just responding to someone asking me to shed light on how I work. If'n it don't work for you I'm really just fine with that

YMMV

[Doug Young]

Joseph, not sure if you're responding to me, but if so you may have misunderstood my comments. I rely heavily on meters. I trust them more than I trust my ears.

Fran's original question had to do with calibrating monitors and monitoring levels, which seems to me to be less an issue, as long as you have metering you can rely on. But I could be mistaken, so I'm following this in hopes of someone shedding more light on the subject.

[Joseph Hanna]

Originally Posted by Doug Young

Joseph, not sure if you're responding to me, but if so you may have misunderstood my comments. I rely heavily on meters. I trust them more than I trust my ears.

Fran's original question had to do with calibrating monitors and monitoring levels, which seems to me to be less an issue, as long as you have metering you can rely on. But I could be mistaken, so I'm following this in hopes of someone shedding more light on the subject.

Naw not directed at anyone Doug...more just stating things for clarification Yep as I said earlier if all you want is to monitor dB levels while mixing one of those $40.00 Radio Shack dB meters will be an accurate enough snapshot as to what the room/speakers are providing to your ears. That said what gets to cd is, or at least could be, a whole nother beast!

[Joseph Hanna]

Originally Posted by Doug Young

Fran's original question had to do with calibrating monitors and monitoring levels, which seems to me to be less an issue, as long as you have metering you can rely on. But I could be mistaken, so I'm following this in hopes of someone shedding more light on the subject.

I read through this thread again you guys and I'm compelled to continue to clarify things. Poor Mr. Ed is dead on the floor but...

I firmly believe in mixing critical pieces up around 83 dB. Part of it for me is I'm gettin older and as much as I've babied my ears some sonic holes have appeared over the years. I'm not turning it up loud cause I can't hear anymore, but more for the accuracy it provides in the critical stage of eq'ing.

Then of course is the issue which is the second component of Katz's ideas on monitoring. That is his suggestion to not only use a -20 dBfs pink noise/rms burst to "find" 83 dB on your monitoring device (let's use Mackie's "Big Knob" as an example) but to also work to keep final mixdown averages 3 to 6 dB below the -20 dBfs bench mark.

That for obvious reasons is to keep plenty of headroom not only for the health of the session itself (keeping the software from clipping) but giving the mastering process room to breath.

Now if the idea is one doing their own quasi mastering using all of the above ideas and then combining that with an ever watchful monitoring of how the session is unfolding as it pertains to rms vs peak levels differences becomes paramount. Getting control of peaks that may not be obvious to the ear and are not essential to the dynamics of the recording serve to give the engineer far more control over whatever device is used in the mastering stage be it analog style compression or maximizing.

It certainly doesn't have to be crushed ala contemporary techniques but can serve as a great way to not only bump levels but in the case of solo acoustic guitar recording change where the guitars appear (depth wise) to the listener.

Yikes I said enough.

YMMV guys

[DupleMeter]

Just as a point of interest. I read Katz's article on metering and calibration years ago and implemented that in my workflow (and the Durrough Meters...which are well worth the $$$ if you get paid to mix or record).

After years of mixing on a calibrated system - I notice a huge difference when I go somewhere with a monitoring system that is either not calibrated or calibrated to a different standard. I find I can even "level set" a playback system and be frighteningly close to my calibrated system just because I know how it should "feel" in that pocket.

I use metric halo hardware and actually have several presets to switch between for different purposes:
-20dBfs = 0VU = 83dBspl (AES standard)
-18dBfs = 0VU = 83dBspl (EBU standard)
-20dBfs = 0VU = 77dBspl (6dB down, AES standard)
-18dBfs = 0VU = 77dBspl (6dB down, EBU standard)

and then I do that set for each playback system.

I also find spot testing at "ridiculous" level changes is a nice to highlight things (like 71dBspl to see how much the extreme ends disappear, or 89dB (very briefly) to see how overbearing they become). That plus moving from my big DynAudios to smaller speaker that better represent various playback devices helps too. But that's not so much calibration as mix integrity checks. All those playback systems are calibrated.

So - I guess what I'm saying is...Katz knows a thing or two when you get into his process for a while it really does make a huge difference in the end results.

And one last thing - beware the room. If you're recording at home...pump some music through your calibrated system and then walk around. You may be very surprised at how inconsistent the sound it outside your sweet spot. All those parallel flat surfaces and untreated corners contribute to audio oddities like axial room modes and low frequency build-up.