mixing at low volumes

[wen]

After a long hiatus from singing due to criticism of my voice, I recently finished a song that a lot of people have said is "car ad friendly" and I want to do a good job mixing it.

I seem to recall either Ronan or Rob Chiarelli or Robin Frederick saying that for film tv in general, it is a good idea to mix at low volumes to allow the bass and/or vocal to cut through without competing with dialog if the cue is played under dialog. Is that right? If not, what is the goal when mixing at low volumes and what would 'low volume" be, generally... as low as possible while still being able to hear the bass?

I have not delved into all the detailed nuances of mixing like many people here have. I generally stick to LCR, subtractive EQ, and subtle reverb and compression but don't have much knowledge beyond that so I just wanted general guidance since mixing is a detailed topic

Another thought is that if this song were ever to be used for a car ad, maybe it wouldn't be under dialog at all. Ideally one mixes (or re-mixes) for the purpose, but without knowing the ultimate purpose, what main choices do you make for mixing?


Here's a link to the song if you're interested:
https://soundcloud.com/wendawilliamson/ ... st/s-skBiz

[Len911]

After a long hiatus from singing due to criticism of my voice

Glad you have returned to singing!
K system metering by Bob Katz is a mixing standard and many daws have a k system meter included. Imo it makes sense to monitor your mixing at the level you will be sending your song out as. The same thing can be applied to mixing in general,
you wouldn't tweak each track in solo to get it to sound ideal on it's own, but how they sound in a mix of several tracks together. You have no control of what the end user does to your song once it's mixed,and even less when they require stems and
mix it themselves.

[funsongs]

My reply is just a general mixing one - listening to mixes at low 'room' volume - let's say 20% - ought to reveal either/both what's spiking and/or what's missing.
It shouldn't have to be a loud playback to hear all the ingredients you've put in there. "Balance" - IMHO - is key.

It can/should sound full & complete without having to be turned way up.
Hope that helps.

[guscave]

Just to add. Be sure to also listen to your mix in mono. If a particular instrument can't be heard in mono, there's a good chance that it may be fighting for frequency space with another instrument or there maybe a phase issue. Mixing in mono also really helps you get a better perspective of each tracks volume.

[andygabrys]

In addition to what's written above:

Mixing at low volumes does two things

1) reduces the effect of bass buildup / destructive interference in your room. Room nodes where the bass is either unnaturally high or low and the room isn't treated.

2) allows you to mix elements so that they are in an even plane - you hear each thing.

So - to get your sounds, to hear your reverbs and effects, to eq and compress - monitor at a healthy level.

To get your balances and fine tune - monitor at the lowest level you can (like almost off or one knob click louder than off on your speakers).

Yes you should be able to hear everything at that level - bass should be present etc.

But that is also relative to how you have treated things before that point - if you have too much sub, or weird midrange resonances that you haven't dealt with, then getting balances is still going to be tough.

The K system is awesome, and I have used that for a number of years, but it doesn't explain the whole enchilada and its more effective where you have a treated room. If you don't you have your room really well engineered / treated you need to work around it to get great mixes. Apparent Loudness to the ear when you "master" also has some fine points that are issues with the K system. I could go on and on. anyways.

[wen]

thanks you guys! That's all very helpful.

[mojobone]

Volume is a tricky concept, because it doesn't actually mean anything, until you have something to compare it to; Bob Katz, who came up with the K-System, managed to avoid using the term at all, 'til halfway through the first edition of his now-classic, Mastering Audio; The Art & The Science. As a general rule, mixing "at low volume" means quiet enough that you can comfortably talk over the music, not so low you're straining to hear. In other words background music level, the thing the 'loudness' button on your old hi-fi was invented for. Listening low tends to emphasize midrange, which our ears are most sensitive to; as you turn up the wick you'll hear stouter lows and more pungent highs according to the Fletcher-Munson Curve, a topic which you should investigate. A great mastering job means nothing is sticking out at below conversation-level nor at 85dB and up.

[wen]

thanks moj, that is helpful!

[Len911]

Reference monitoring seems to me to be an awful confusing and controversial subject. The ultimate goal is to provide a pleasurable listening experience that translates well to the broad spectrum of playback methods and devices as possible, and a point in space and time that allows a mixer/mastering engineer to use as their personal standard to best achieve that goal. It's music, so it needs to sound musical and present a vibe, and if you get too bogged down in the details and nuance it's very likely to kill it. A question I have is why people still insist that people mix on monitors in a room that will color the sound when 80% of people listen on headphones? It's reminiscent of the question that if a tree falls in the forest does it make a sound
if there is no person around to hear it. A reference doesn't add or take away anything from the sound, although it influences the actions taken when mixing.
If I were to buy monitors or headphones to mix on, why would it matter that the bass extends to only 50 hz if I am going to apply a low cut filter on everything below 80hz?
There have been numerous tests about whether people can hear the difference between various lossless and lossy formats which many conclusions are drawn that seem to indicate not or not much better than chance
. I suppose there are further studies about whether people can tell whether or what sort of preamps were used in a recording, cheap or premium,though I feel that that fails to capture the point. Psychoacoustics and musicality are the point imo, and how the equipment affects the vibe and musicality, something difficult or nearly impossible to determine by the specs alone, and why we rely on reviewers we trust to decipher and communicate best that help meet our preferences.

[wen]

Thanks, interesting thoughts, Len. Since my objective is to get things placed in film/tv, I think mixing in a room, vs headphones, is in line with that goal. Your thought about monitors and cutting low end off brings to mind a perplexion of my own -- why do some people insist that one DAW "sounds better" than another? I thought the fundamental captured sound was predicated by the pre-amp and converters alone. And I do hear a difference in pre-amps. Maybe they mean the DAW's effects and processing