How to calibrate mixing level

I've also read Katz and agree with him on the vast majority of whats in that book. Great stuff. I'm also confused about monitor calibration, though I understand all of the reasons for listening around the 85dB range. I simply use a dB meter to be sure I'm not listening too loudly for extended periods of time. I vary the volume to listen softly, loudly, etc., but tend to stick around 85 dB most of the time.

But what kind of music is "it"? Needless to say, "it" can vary so vastly...

Right, but the average levels are similar, for this reason there are 2 different scales for dynamic range, one for pop-styles, and one for very dynamic styles such as classical & jazz. You be the judge which suits your production. The ( AFAIK )86 avg still holds true, you just allow yourself 6dB additional headroom when mixing dynamic music. If you are really curious, just read about the K-system at digido.com - Since my explanations are not as well thought out.

And the amount of compression used on a final mix can also vary greatly depending on the inherent dynamics of the music itself.

And you're still below the threshold in either scenario since it is leaning towards more dynamic to begin with - your peaks will be lower, your valleys will be higher if comped to genre or taste, but still below 0. Still able to set your bounce to disk levels appropriately, deliver a mix whether you prefer comp or not.

And regarding a movie soundtrack
Ah, that wasn't clear how I typed it. That would have been the entire program - voice + SFX + Music...

Not closing my mind to the logic of this procedure, but basically I still don't get it, because I don't understand how there can be a generic "it" when there are so many musically stylistic and mix aesthetics as variables.

I'm not the best at writing this stuff out on the fly. Do ask more, it probably makes more sense - if my explanations and weak links are unbearable - try digido.com

Metering to push against 0dB is a really odd concept during track+mix. Very damaging and unnecessary. The adjusted solution would be to monitor at good average levels and preserve your dynamics.

J

hi iS and everyone, seems to me that there are two issues here.

first is the internal, relative levels within and given mix, and
second, that mixes audible level via monitoring.

i won't cover ground here that others have put so well already, but just add that,

i calibrate my non pop/rock (full dynamics) @ -14dbfs = 0VU.
-14dbfs to 0dbfs(14db) is the minimum headroom for peaks in the mix.(around four time the average.) all i/o boxes should accomodated this easily. some have double this (avalon audio - up to 30db above 0VU.)
generally, the more the merrier.

so, my mixes on the logic out bus are going to average -14db to -20db, but the peaks will rise to -6db at given points.

on a VU meter, this will translate to 0VU to -6VU average, and around +8VU on peaks.

the monitoring of this: should be set so when the logic meter or VU equivalent is dancing 'round the 0VU position, the spl meter, at the monitoring position should show ~ 86db spl.

any reduction or increase in the internal levels in the DAW should be then taken into account.

i still have my doubts as to whether a lot of the two way bookshelf near fields actually have enough grunt in reserve to handle all situations without running out of headroom.

Hey Heimel,

reduce "internal" RMS for your content

and then turn up the monitors until the meter reads 83dbf per speaker?

Yes.

Since my favorite mix would be a mastered cd at full scale that wouldn't give me the proper mix volume would it?

If you simply imported it, correct ( see above for the adjusted approach ). DR9's follow up wraps it up quite well - so if you want your avg to be -20 ( internal ) and you want your avg ( airbourne ) at 86, you would then reduce your favorite mix amplitude internally to match avg for internal, then adjust your volume knob for external to 86.

Now you have headroom and proper gain settings for your system. I think your answer is in these posts, but you can ask us or Katz for further info.

Again, I am no expert on this approach and don't follow this approach strictly. I just found my own way, which is very similar to DR9's description. Some analyzers even analyze to the K-System - if you want to follow it closely.

J