I would say the same 70-80db and sometimes a little more.
I find it very refreshing to turn the volumen a little down and discover more details that way.

I'll crank it at the end of the day just to check a few things but in general I'm keeping it lower. As a result, the mixes are more dynamic. Which I thought was strange because I would think the opposite would be true.

I don't think it's strange.
When the volumen is set right(lower than you think) you can really hear the bad artifacts of compression in general.
I don't think that it requires much sound pressure before the ear starts to compress on it's own, that's why I keep it low just like when we speak.

Best Regards,

If you look at the Fletcher Munson curves you will see that about 83 dBSPL is the flattest part of the curve so most folks will tell you (see also http://www.digido.com) that you should be monitoring about 83 dBSPL for the best overall frequency response and sound. What level you really listen to depends on your own situation.

Hope this helps.

do you guys have dB meters and adjust as you master??

It would also depend on your monitors as well, and amp for that matter. There are a lot of factors at work other than the fletcher munson curve. I do have an spl meter but I rarely bring it out. Only really when I'm calibrating my room. I do keep it handy when I'm doing DVD-V titles and want to check the level but not when I'm working on music.

I always monitor at the same level. I never touch my volume knob. I have a dim switch if I want to cut the level for whatever reason. I could not work confidently if the volume changed during a session. I do have a meter to check things whenever necessary.
My monitoring SPL is 90DB (give or take a db depending on the material) It's loud but I have very good power amps and monitors that perform at this level easily so there is no distortion. I can do this all day and my ears are fine. This is the level I'm comfortable at. It's necessary for me when listening to what's going on accurately in the low end.
If you have an amp that starts to distort at 75-80db that will fatigue your ear a lot more than a higher SPL that is not distorted.
Making sure you have the proper amplifier is critical when playing at these type of levels
.

turtletone wrote: It would also depend on your monitors as well, and amp for that matter. There are a lot of factors at work other than the fletcher munson curve. I do have an spl meter but I rarely bring it out. Only really when I'm calibrating my room. I do keep it handy when I'm doing DVD-V titles and want to check the level but not when I'm working on music.

??????depend on your monitors and amp????????? WHY?

Do different amplifiers put out different SPL levels? I don't think so. They may put out different SPLs because the gain of the monitor amp or the load of the speakers maybe different but you are measuring an acoustical level not a power level of the amplifier.

SPL is a measure of LOUDNESS and two different amplifiers or two different sets of speakers may sound different but if you read your SPL meter you could get them to the same "level".

Not sure what you meant?????

-TOM-

different monitors and amps have different curves not to mention the room. so you are dealing with different curves as well as your ears curving at different levels. So at 83db your ears may be the flatest but maybe not your system, or maybe so. that's what I mean.
My monitors sound great loud, I can push a clients nose in 3 cm with sheer spl. I do like to crank at times but I approach the masters a different way at different volumes. When I'm working on a project I don't touch the volume knob either, I set my dim and can kick it off if I need more volume to check something. I also find that every room has a saturation point where it just kicks in and rocks. I like to stay away from that area as it tends to sound very good.

turtletone wrote: different monitors and amps have different curves not to mention the room. so you are dealing with different curves as well as your ears curving at different levels. So at 83db your ears may be the flattest but maybe not your system, or maybe so. that's what I mean.
My monitors sound great loud, I can push a clients nose in 3 cm with sheer SPL. I do like to crank at times but I approach the masters a different way at different volumes. When I'm working on a project I don't touch the volume knob either, I set my dim and can kick it off if I need more volume to check something. I also find that every room has a saturation point where it just kicks in and rocks. I like to stay away from that area as it tends to sound very good.

Sorry what "curves" do you mean frequency curve or power curve or a power supply curve or a combination of two of them? Not sure but what you are saying but it goes against most of what I have experienced and read. Maybe a better explanation from you in regards to "curves" ? Thanks. I don't want to be a PITA but when people start using "curves" when they are referring to a power amp I don't really understand what they are describing. Power amps should be a strait wire with gain PERIOD but we all know they sound different driving different loads and different speakers. Is that what you are referring to?

-TOM-

Thomas W. Bethel wrote: Sorry what "curves" do you mean frequency curve or power curve or a power supply curve or a combination of two of them?

All speakers generate different response, phase, impulse, etc., "curves" at different power levels. Some to a greater degree than others. It's simply a fact of life with devices that are typically only about 1% efficient. Power generates heat, and heat alters the electromechanical properties. Passive speakers are especially affected because the crossover and conjugate network responses depend directly on the driver impedances. Of course, one of the definitions of a great speaker is good response uniformity across a broad power range. Many speakers don't live up to this definition.

Thomas

Like most speakers I know of, they have there own freq curve of some kind and that also changes with level. they don't have the same curve at 70db as at 100db. also amps sound different as we know. some are brite some a dull and this changes as the gain or load changes. Add this to our ears curve changing and there is a lot of things changing at different levels. basically what i'm saying is the level where your ears are flatest may not be the level where your system is most acurate.

:D Hey folks, I see no right or wrong remarks in this topic, in fact, this is a REALLY good thread. These physics that work for and against us goes way beyond just the preference of Mackie vs. NS-10's.

Terms like,

Curve variance

Where your ear may be most flat vs. system accuracy

Response, phase, impulse and their resulting curve.

Electromechanical properties and efficiency.

Crossover and driver relationships.

Sound changes with amps driving different loads of different speakers.

Room saturation points.

Loudness and our old friends Fletcher & Munson.

Undistorted SPL

Ranges of monitoring levels and its effect on the perception on dynamics and the detection of compression effects.

This is ALL GREAT STUFF, man... I dig this forum! Doesn't get any better anywhere.

--Rick

P.S. LOL, This reads like a workshop schedule at an AES conference
:) .

Please read this informational document,

(Dead Link Removed)

before discussing anything more to do with levels and "curves"

It speaks, much better than I seem to be able to communicate, to what we have be discussing.

Thanks

-TOM-

Thomas, what Bob K is talking about is loudness in this article. And I think most of us agree with his practice, I know I follow it when working with audio for DVD and Broadcast. I also follow it to a certain extent when working with music. What it doesn't take into account is different types of music and how the listener plays back this kind of music. It also doesn't take into account the system that is reproducing this kind of music. For instance, a pair of urie 813's are not effecient enough to sound good when played back at -6db below 83db spl. Where as a pair of ns10's will sound much better. The frequency curve of a monitor system changes with level. Some more than others. as you run pink noise through a system and turn up the level while measuring it, The frequecy curve is going to change with the level because of the reasons barefoot outlined. So depending on the monitoring system, it may sound better at 75db as opposed to 83db or may shine at 90db. I'm talking about frequency response in relation to level, not level alone.

interesting document, I've read it before...

But I must agree with Michael that there's so much more to it than just using the level where ears(normally!) has the flatest response.

As with everything else you have to make a compromise between your gear and your ears.

You must also realise that when you accept that the ear has a "flattest point" then different audio gear in different rooms also have a "flattest point".

...with the higest quality gear this point seems to be wider than with just good quality gear.
And as Michael says: the room also has a level where it plays music best.

Another thing is that i have experienced systems to have much more differences in response on different levels that the ear has... but maybe that's just my ears? or what?

The system I have now seems to have forgot all about that though :lol:

Best Regards,

Here is another thing to throw in there to make it even more confusing. AIR. How much air is between you and your monitors. We all know air is an effective low pass filter. certain systems sound better or worse than others depending on how far you are away from them. I did a little test the other day and measured 80db spl at 10' and listened, then 80db spl at 5' and listened. sounds different. Is that the air or my head just being more in line with the tweeter or both or maybe it's the speakers and amp. Also how humid the air is. Do masters from humid places sound brighter than from dry places. Is that why all latin music sounds too bright for me? It's pretty mind numbing to think of all the variables that are at play with a system without even taking into account taste. What's the most accurate, 10' with 30% humidity? How about humidity in relation to drivers and cabinets? is the paper cone more accurate with more or less humidity. Should I turn my airconditioner higher or lower? hmmm now temperature comes into play. if I turn my airconditioner higher, does that bring my amp temperature below it's optimal operating temperature? I need an aspirin, which is another variable. If I take to many aspirin my ears ring, will I compensate for that if I master with a hangover?

he he... :lol:
I don't believe in compensatin.
Doing things where you have to compensate just makes things worse.

Yes, simply having a reference level doesn't solve the issue of power dependent response. Like Michael mentioned, the spectral power density going into the speakers depends on the source material. So, with some music the tweeters might be working hard, while with other music the woofers are feeling it.

Another basic thing to consider is the listening distance. Identical speakers with identical reference levels at their listening positions require different power inputs for different listening distances. Increasing the listening distance by 40% nearly doubles the power requirement.

Thomas

turtletone wrote: Thomas, what Bob K is talking about is loudness in this article. And I think most of us agree with his practice, I know I follow it when working with audio for DVD and Broadcast. I also follow it to a certain extent when working with music. What it doesn't take into account is different types of music and how the listener plays back this kind of music. It also doesn't take into account the system that is reproducing this kind of music. For instance, a pair of urie 813's are not effecient enough to sound good when played back at -6db below 83db spl. Where as a pair of ns10's will sound much better. The frequency curve of a monitor system changes with level. Some more than others. as you run pink noise through a system and turn up the level while measuring it, The frequecy curve is going to change with the level because of the reasons barefoot outlined. So depending on the monitoring system, it may sound better at 75db as opposed to 83db or may shine at 90db. I'm talking about frequency response in relation to level, not level alone.

To follow your logic to the Nth degree I would want to have the Gratefull Dead's full concert sound system to master their music on since that is what people are use to hearing it on? Or would I give a client a different master for his home stereo, for his car and for him to play on the club system were he normally performs?

I have a good set of speakers a good power amp a very well designed mastering room and I use these every day when I am mastering. I know how the monitoring system translates into other playback systems and I know the system inside and out. I leave the monitor gain control at the point that produces 83 DBSPL in my room and I turn out very consistant masters. I even have a good quality (not radio shack) sound level meter to check my levels.

I don't have a number of different speakers nor do I change amplifiers or my acoustics to compensate for various types of music. I use the same speakers, the same amplifier and the same acoustics for everything I master. I guess I may be missing something here because almost every mastering engineer I know does things pretty much the same way I do it.

Could you please explain what you mean by your comments. I guess I am just thick headed today.

Thanks in advance.

This is a very helpful thread for me.

Thomas W. Bethel wrote: I leave the monitor gain control at the point that produces 83 DBSPL in my room and I turn out very consistant masters...... I don't have a number of different speakers nor do I change amplifiers or my acoustics to compensate for various types of music. I use the same speakers, the same amplifier and the same acoustics for everything I master.

I think you have exactly the right approach Thomas.

As I've said, I agree with others here that speakers, and to a much lesser degree amplifiers, change their response characteristics with power. I don't agree, however, that one should change levels depending on the music. My argument about power dependence essentially boils down to choose equipment that is less power dependent.

Thomas

Ok, what if your system is more linear at 90db or 70db. Then mastering at 83db wouldn't be right. If your mastering some hip hop with a nice 808 banging away and your at 83db but your woofers really don't kick in until 87db? 83db on one system may sound nice and balanced but on another it sounds balanced at a different level. I find this to be true more often than not. different systems sound better at different levels. for theater and broadcast, I think a fixed level is good because in theaters it's more controlled. They know what they are dealing with. it's THX or DOLBY certified and in order to have that certification I imagine they have to meet certain requirements. for television, it consists mostly of dialog and that needs to ride at a certain level to be consistent because that's the primary focus. You don't tune into CNN to reveal the linearity of your TV speakers. Music on the other hand has different requirements and challenges. Depending on how a system is designed will determine how it's going to reproduce this. If everything were created equal then we wouldn't have this discussion. But it's not. Different drivers have varying efficentcy and sensitivity and therefore will respond differently to level. The more drivers you stick in a cabinet, the more effort it takes to make sure these stay as uniform as possible. This and the fletcher muson curve is why we ME's don't touch our volume knobs. we know our system and at what level things need to be at to sound good. Why do we crank something up to check it if 83db were the magic number? If it were perfectly linear, then we would know exactly how it would sound loud but that's not the case. Both the system and our ears change as the level changes.

And I do give different masters for different applications. There is a whole business dedicated to remixing and remastering theatrical releases for DVD because they found that it didn't translate to the home theater. I will give a client a different master for clubs, radio, vinyl, cassette. If i'm mastering a hip hop record, i'm going to check it loud to make sure it will play right, if it's going to MTV i'm going to make adjustments to it so it play well there. but this is off topic.

What this topic is about is at what level does your system sound the best. the level that you can work at all day and not have any suprises the next.

turtletone wrote: Ok, what if your system is more linear at 90db or 70db. Then mastering at 83db wouldn't be right. If your mastering some hip hop with a nice 808 banging away and your at 83db but your woofers really don't kick in until 87db? 83db on one system may sound nice and balanced but on another it sounds balanced at a different level. I find this to be true more often than not. different systems sound better at different levels. for theater and broadcast, I think a fixed level is good because in theaters it's more controlled. They know what they are dealing with. it's THX or DOLBY certified and in order to have that certification I imagine they have to meet certain requirements. for television, it consists mostly of dialog and that needs to ride at a certain level to be consistent because that's the primary focus. You don't tune into CNN to reveal the linearity of your TV speakers. Music on the other hand has different requirements and challenges. Depending on how a system is designed will determine how it's going to reproduce this. If everything were created equal then we wouldn't have this discussion. But it's not. Different drivers have varying efficiency and sensitivity and therefore will respond differently to level. The more drivers you stick in a cabinet, the more effort it takes to make sure these stay as uniform as possible. This and the Fletcher muson curve is why we ME's don't touch our volume knobs. we know our system and at what level things need to be at to sound good. Why do we crank something up to check it if 83db were the magic number? If it were perfectly linear, then we would know exactly how it would sound loud but that's not the case. Both the system and our ears change as the level changes.

And I do give different masters for different applications. There is a whole business dedicated to remixing and remastering theatrical releases for DVD because they found that it didn't translate to the home theater. I will give a client a different master for clubs, radio, vinyl, cassette. If I'm mastering a hip hop record, I'm going to check it loud to make sure it will play right, if it's going to MTV I'm going to make adjustments to it so it play well there. but this is off topic.

What this topic is about is at what level does your system sound the best. the level that you can work at all day and not have any surprises the next.

If my system didn't work at 83 dBSPL I would probably get another system. 83 dBSPL is a guide point - a middle of the road, if you will, but it is a standard level that will allow you to work all day and night and not get fatigued and have a ready reference to see how your stuff compares with others. If you watch the Sound Level Meter it goes higher and lower but is centered around 83 dBSPL.

As to your comment about theaters being more controlled. Well if you have Tom Cruise taking off in an F14 it is going to be louder than Tom Cruise whispering in to his partner in a romantic setting but they are both being played over the same theater sound system and we still can enjoy them.

I don't agree with different mastering for different media UNLESS there is a reason for it (such as MP3s for the web or a cassette master for dubbing).

If you are going to give someone a master it should be playable on most systems and sound OK. No mastering that I have ever done has sounded good on all systems it was played on.

I think you said you were from NY so maybe they do things differently in the Big Apple.

I go all the way back to vinyl mastering and we may have pushed the levels a bit for a hip hop or rap record but at the same time you were forced by the media to widen the groves which meant less music which some artists did not appreciate. Today we do not have the same constraints. I guess it all boils down to different strokes for different folks.

If you monitors are not up to par or you have acoustical or speaker problems that don't allow you to monitor at a consistent level I guess I would find some better speakers or find a good acoustical engineer and have him or her find a solution for your room.

Thomas, how did you read all that in what I said. Of coarse my monitors sound good at all levels. good is a relative term. everything I listen to with my ears sounds good even though the freq response curves at different levels. But if you listen to your speakers, i'll bet you find a level that they really shine at. I can work all day long at 83db but for my taste I like 80db better. Joe likes 90db. I'm sure that if I stuck another pair on monitors in my room, I would prefer another level.

Mastering for different purposes is the same thing as mastering for different media. Radio is a media, like vinyl is a media, like cassette, and like DVD home theater setups.

I know this thread has gone in different directions. Which is cool. I want to say that because an amplifire is putting out a certain SPL level doesn't mean it's clean power. You need to know what percentage of distortion (If any) the amp puts out at the levels you are listening at.

joe lambert wrote: I want to say that because an amplifire is putting out a certain SPL level doesn't mean it's clean power. You need to know what percentage of distortion (If any) the amp puts out at the levels you are listening at.

Very true. However, as long as you have a decent amp, you can bet that the speakers are generating at least ten time as much distortion. And a decent DAC is will be generating far less then one tenth the distortion of the amp. Everything contributes, but one really needs to get a perspective on where the major issues reside.

Thomas

Maybe I'm just naive but it almost seems to be a common sense issue. If you work every day in a given room and turn out masters that your clients and the public like & buy; and you stay in business for a period of time, then it seems to me that you are monitoring at a good level. Some engineers monitor at really loud levels. Some much lower. It all comes down to results, not a SPL meter. The results will dictate your levels over time, won't they?

Just for the fun of it I'm going to check my SPL at a comfortable monitoring level soon.

Don Grossinger wrote: Maybe I'm just naive but it almost seems to be a common sense issue. If you work every day in a given room and turn out masters that your clients and the public like & buy; and you stay in business for a period of time, then it seems to me that you are monitoring at a good level. Some engineers monitor at really loud levels. Some much lower. It all comes down to results, not a SPL meter. The results will dictate your levels over time, won't they?

Just for the fun of it I'm going to check my SPL at a comfortable monitoring level soon.

Well said and RIGHT to the point.

-TOM-

...Just to throw a monkey wrench in here..

I do not monitor at a "certain level". It simply depends on the source material.

Here are some examples:

Classical/Symphonic. The average level tends to be around 76dB for mp and for mf around 84dB Full fff can reach 110dB on my monitors.

Country Music. Typically around 85dB average. I will do a "test" at 100dB to make certain nothing "painful" comes through.

Rock music (typically loud Rock) This will average around 95dB since this is the level many consumers enjoy it. It makes no sense at all to try to balance rock music at lower levels. It will not have the same balance if mastered at 85dB than it will at 95dB. My clients like the mastering I do for Rock when it is done at higher levels. I know, I have tried it at many levels. It depends on what your definition of 'rock' is. Iron Maiden comes to mind..

Jazz. Typically very dynamic. As long as I do not come close to clipping my amplifiers (117dB range) a "live level" is preferred. Typically 92 to 94dB average.

Rap. I do not do a lot of rap but when I do, I like to hear it at around 92dB and play it back for final adjustment just under the clip points, peak. Rap mastered at low level simply leaves out too much detail for me.

Folk acoustic. I master this music as if the instruments are playing acoustically. Typically 78 to 84dB average but banjo's can get really loud as well..so I can go upwards of 90dB

The whole premise of one level mastering simply does not translate for me with various music. I put the level typically where a consumer would mostly want to have it for the different music types. Classical needs to have headroom. I record minus 55dB tones all the time with ppp passages.

TeeMe, what amp and speakers are you using? and what to control the volume?

Halcro DM10 input controller -------> Halcro DM-58 Monoblock amplifiers (2) ---------> Kimber 8TC ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (drum roll please) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------> **Yamaha NS1000M**

Sorry for fuckin' with you TeeMe. I just couldn't resist!!! :D :D :D ;)

he he... :lol:
TeeMe have you been out to hear other speakers and amps?
Generally the better the system is the lower you can monitor the music while still having dynamics and hearing all that's going on, and because of the lower volume your ears will not compress.

TeeME

I used the Yamaha speakers for the recording of classical music for a number of years with a CARVER amplifier and found them to be a good combination. I sold the speakers and the amplifier to a former student assistant and he is still using them. A very rare and impressive speaker that if driven by the right amplifier can sound INCREDIBLE. Nice choice.

We went with the Tannoy's next which I found to be very good but in a lot of ways I missed my Yamaha NS1000's especially in their ability to project the smallest details with accuracy and thier ability to go from ppp to fff without sounding strained. Oh well maybe I will find a good pair someday on the used equipment market.

Take care.

Thomas, with the exception of yourself, myself and a few other engineers here and there, not many people have heard or could even digest the power and freedom from distortion and detail that NS1000's provide. Never harsh, hard or brittle. Pure fidelity. Mine are -3dB at 17hz in my room. For everything I have heard others saying they sound "tinny" or "lack the bottom octave" is mearly non-sense and I bet many people who write about them, most likely have never heard them or heard of them or they were "set-up" incorrectly from the studio guildlines written in detail over the years about using them on their sides so all drivers are at ear level. They certainly deserve the finest of electronics as well. All the esoteric equipment I have used them with, believe it or not, what comes closest to this combo is the "lowly Crown DC300A" and it trounced on the Plinus amplifier I once used.

I remember being questioned on my main monitors by a client and I kept saying NS1000's and how the client hated them..so I said, bring your own then..and when he got to the studio and saw them..he said, I thought you had those "little black yamahas". I think many people think the ns1000's is just an upscale ns10. Nothing is farther from the truth. I had a set of Bowers & Wilkins
Nautilus loudspeakers (they come with amplifiers , look like a snail) and the Yamahas simply do an overall better job. The B&W's are a 4 way design, very accurate but the piano and cello "rang like a bell" so I got rid of them. Mastering on them would leave many instuments in the 250 to 600hz fundamental range a few db lower than level. The Yamahas have flat powerband response in this critical area (even NS10's do this well).

Look on ebay, every once in a while, a pair will pop up for under a grand.

The http://www.4sptech.com are very accurate and serious translators as well..but they begin dipping below 30hz but will be level at 30hz.

TeeME,

I understand that you like the sound of your NS100's ( I can't agree), but comparing them to modern, relatively high linearity, speakers like the Nautilus is pure fantasy. I hope that's not what you're doing? You may have issues with the dispersion characteristics of the B&W, but this is a question translatability, not linearity. I prefer wider baffles myself, but there are plenty of modern speakers out there that have them. Ones that, in many cases, will completely trounce the Yamaha's with respect to linearity. And no amount of "set up" is going to narrow the gap.

Btw, I really like the technical discussion on the SP Technology website. Clear and, for the most part, accurate. One big topic they avoid, however, is the issue of the very serious resonances those aluminum cones have starting at about 4kHz. They allude to it when they mention the upper frequency limits of these driver types, but they don't say why. Anyhow, it's a nice straightforward and informative discussion overall.

Thomas

Thomas (barefoot), with a crossover frequency at 950hz using 4th order combined slope (passive/acoustic) the woofers are close to 50dB down at 4K meaning that ringing in the aluminium cone is non exsistant.

I reviewed loudspeakers and also designed them for over 20 years. Truly the 1000 (ONE THOUSANDS) are much better in ALL areas than anything that I have had the luxury to use. I have reviewed the entire Wilson line, Egglestons, Martin Logan, Westlake and ATC. With the proper electronics, the one thousands are ruler flat, perfect power bandwidth display, have a faster rise time than the electrostatics and give me the goods. I will also say they are not for everyone. they keep my clients happy, I like them, they are paid for and that is all that matters. When people hear them, they simply cannot believe their ears.

They are not going to sound like they should unless the upstream electronics are first rate. Forget using them with a receiver. Even a McIntosh 2105 sounds "sloppy" on them. Either Halcro, KR audio or BAT equipment works well with them. NS1000's are not an easy load for an amplifier.

The SP's are quite nice as well. Very dynamic but they need gobs and gobs of power. SP tech will not even consider their 30 day paid shipping trial unless you have at least 300 watts/channel for their Timepiece 2.0's. BTW, I am looking at some green mountain europas to listen to some day soon but I need loudspeakers that can faithfully display 20hz at 90dB ..."level" with 3KhZ and not many will do that but the 1000's do.

Good rooms matter. IF you have heard 1000's and they were NOT on their sides (WMT---TMW) then you have not heard them. Mr Hammang has his set just that way as well.

This is Mr. Hammangs Setup

(Dead Link Removed)

Eaches own. If I was forced to use something else, I would eventually use it and use it well.

TeeME wrote: with a crossover frequency at 950hz using 4th order combined slope (passive/acoustic) the woofers are close to 50dB down at 4K meaning that ringing in the aluminium cone is non exsistant.

And a primary resonance peak that rises +10dB above the nominal driver passband level brings it up to -40dB. Well, you and I certainly have very different definitions of "non existent". In my designs, I worry VERY much about distortions 40dB down. Especially when they fall in such a sensitive frequency range, and they ring out for literally dozens of milliseconds. I can only guess that SP does too. So, I hope they've used a notch filter. Of course, all these filters and steep slopes have their own negative ramifications, but now we're getting too far off the subject.

TeeME wrote: I like them, they are paid for and that is all that matters......
Eaches own. If I was forced to use something else, I would eventually use it and use it well.

I'm not questioning your abilities as an ME. I just find the idea of putting tens of thousands of dollars worth of electronics in front a pair of NS1000's (ONE THOUSANDS... do pardon my typo) to be, well, funny. And, I must admit, the slight vein of Puritanism in me finds it a little wasteful.

Seems to me the folks at SP might agree:

SP Technology wrote: "let's make one thing clear.... Every aspect of a product is carefully weighed with regard to its performance benefit vs. cost. If it can be shown to offer a benefit both measurably and audibly that that is cost effective, only then will it be considered.

Thomas

I usually like to look at the numbers when I am considering an equipment purchase to make sure I understand what the builder is trying to do and that his ideas are sound. But like with anything in audio it comes down to listening when I make my final decision. When I am ready to purchase a digital or analog device I have a requirement that I can audition it in my own studio for a couple of days at the least and for longer periods if possible. I have found a lot of equipment that looks good on paper and sounds BAD when you really listen to it . The converse is also true I have seen some equipment that on paper did not look all that exciting that was very good sounding. A lot of published specs are very dependent on how the measurements were taken and how good the person was that performed the tests. I guess since I like these Yamaha speaker also that they must be better than their pubished specs.

The Yamahas really do sound good when driven by the proper equipment in a properly designed room no matter what their specs say.

Just my two cents.

-TOM-

Thomas W. Bethel wrote: I have found a lot of equipment that looks good on paper and sounds BAD when you really listen to it ......

The Yamahas really do sound good when driven by the proper equipment in a properly designed room no matter what their specs say.

This leads into a whole discussion about what "correct" sounds like. And, unless you have some way of plugging the recorded information directly into your brain, you have absolutely no way of knowing. Only measurements can tell you if your monitoring system accurately represents the recorded signal. You might argue you don't want or like accuracy, but that's another debate. I've discussed this at length over at the Recpit. Rather than go over it all again, I'll point you to the [[url=http://[/URL]="http://recpit.proso…"]thread[/]="http://recpit.proso…"]thread[/].

Thomas

This has been a fascinating technical discussion about equipment response under essentially ideal laboratory conditions for your equipment.

But the AES Katz article was actually discussing monitor SPLs ideal for the engineers ears in order to create mixes that sound good on home user's systems - not where the speakers sound best.

In the long run, how your amplifiers affect your speakers at any SPL is only one aspect of a much larger discussion. The next step is how your monitor level affects your ears, and step three is how your resulting mix sounds on the home user's systems.

If your speakers sound "truer" at 95 dB, but it throws your Fletcher-Munsen response in your ears off by some amount of dB at the extended lo & hi frequencies, then what have you gained?

Furthermore, if you take that mix done at 95, or even 83 dB and play it back at 75 dB, (or whatever the average home listening SPL is) what have you gained?

Katz was suggesting that 77 dB was a more favorable level to mix at for the EARS when doing popular music because it resulted in "mixes that sounded the most pleasing to clients" in terms of freq response & dynamic range, etc. Doesn't that suggest that the most valuable speaker/amp system is the one that sounds best at 77dB (if you accept Katz' theory)?

His argument was also for STANDARDIZING monitor SPLs so we are all mixing where our ears not only have essentially the same freq response, but the clients say mixes sound best in terms of balance. A good idea.

The problem, as he sees it, is that we are in a race for perceived loudness where the user sets his play back SPL for the hottest selling CDs (which are currently compressed to net-zero dynamic range) at a comfortable level, then in order to be competitive every engineer must do the same, or risk having a quiet, muffled end-product.

Essentially, if we can convince everyone simultaneously to mix at 77 dB, without compression and shoot for maximum dynamic range and freq response, then the end user would simply "turn up the volume" and leave it and everyone's mixes would sound the same with more even freq response and greater dynamic range.

Great idea? Will it ever happen? Well.. the standard might get passed, it does make a lot of sense, (the film world did it), but there will always be hot-rodders in pop music who want to be louder than the standard.

This begs the question, how important is it to have the perfect speaker design for studios when the goal is to make hot-selling records? Parlophone Records & Abbey Road struggled for 40 years cutting nothing but true-to-form, audiophile classical records. But it only gained notoriety when it started doing pop records.

I am not saying I have the answer to anything here, I am just expanding on Katz' thinking.

What difference would it make even of we could build the perfect monitoring system with no distortion and perfectly flat response (unless the sole purpose is to analyze sound) when the reality still is that the vast audience listens to hip-hop on crap systems?

If the reality is that we will never escape the race to make hot, compressed, loud mixes, then maybe the "best" monitor system is (to take the Auratone approach one step further) a "commercial music mixing system" with average speakers and full-time compressors that really tell us what our final product is going to sound like in the real world.

I guess my point is that while it is a perfectly sound theory to create audiophile recordings and let the playback system's inadequacies speak for themselves, and Katz' proposal actually makes that concept even MORE feasible because it standardizes "audiophile" recordings. However, in the the real world of competitive commercialization it actually DOES make more sense to mix for the media which is the final product.

Out of curiousity:

1) if you are putting out a Hip-Hop record TODAY, are you going to go (plan a) audiophile and mix it for optimum dynamic range, or are you going to (plan b) compress the s#it out of it to make it loud?

2) are you going to let your audiophile system at 95dB be the final arbiter of the sound, or are you going to make your final decisions based on how it sounds on the "auratone" system?

While in general I tend to agree with Tom's notion of Fletcher-Munson, I feel that you need to listen at various levels during a session. I was told by a leading engineer in my area that Phil Collins used this technique (FWIW) of raising and lowering the overall volume while mixing. It's a good way to judge how the vocal is sitting and aspects of the midrange.

A mix has to stand up at all levels regardless if you're hearing it flat or not. In fact when its non-flat (particularly mid oriented) you tend to hear the weaknesses of the mix better.

1) if you are putting out a Hip-Hop record TODAY, are you going to go (plan a) audiophile and mix it for optimum dynamic range, or are you going to (plan b) compress the s#it out of it to make it loud?

Actually, I am working on one now (been years) and the talent is there, the production is using a Kurzweil K2000 (good sound) and the vocals (if you call them that) are tight.

Tonight later, we are going to visit the mixdown engineer. I had conversation with him about what a "mastering engineer would love to have" on the final mix. This said, I don't know about his monitors since they are not entirely familar to me. The direction I am translating is for the L/R balance to be "right on" and mix the vocals a shade hotter than you normally would. All else fails, I am requesting a 2+2 of the finals so I can mix /edit the vocal tracks as need be as well. The mastering direction I will take this project is to center on an RMS of around -16dB and the VU will be about +2.5 The peaks will run around 0.5 to 0.8 for the most part with a very few hitting upwards to 0.1 or even a solid zero. It is in my experience that this will retain the sonics and still be "plenty loud" to satisfy anyone who compares the works to anyone elses CD. Education is the key. They want this to sound real good, not be the loudest kids on the block. We went over it in detail, it will be fine.

2) are you going to let your audiophile system at 95dB be the final arbiter of the sound, or are you going to make your final decisions based on how it sounds on the "auratone" system?

It will be a careful balance between what the master monitors tell me and the auratones. I will also do a car stereo check. The final decisions are usually quite correct on the NS1000's and the only need to visit the other loudspeakers is that of curiosity. I personally have to "deprogram" myself away from the NS1000's if I am to be judgemental with the auratones. I will listen to several selections on them of familar material before I play this work through them. This is only fair. If anything draws attention to itself on them, I will revisit the NS1000's to "see" just how much attention it is drawing.

Hope this helps