| Author
|
Fletcher Munson Curve and Relative instrument levels
|
Colin OOOD
Moderator
Started Topics :
95
Posts :
5380
Posted : Mar 22, 2006 18:57
|
Quote:
|
On 2006-03-22 14:18, MonasticSquid wrote:
Quote:
|
......the Fletcher-Munson curve is totally irrelevant....
|
|
Quote:
|
....a good mix will automatically conform to the F-M curve
|
|
(is there a contradiction in there...it feels like it when I read it...)
|
|
The rest of that first quote read "to 99.99% of producers the Fletcher-Munson curve is totally irrelevant", which doesn't contradict the second one, as 99.99% of producers (who make a good mix) end up with sound that conforms to the curve without ever considering their work in those terms.
Quote:
| U cant say that it's irrelevant... all knollege is relevant... even if it's in the context of 'knowing that you dont need to know about it'!... then its better to know than to not know..... |
|
By that logic we need to know about everything in the universe - and then discard 99.9999999999999% of that knowledge - before we are truly competent to make music. I'm taking your example to extremes here but at its root that's what it's saying.
Quote:
|
...to my logical mind... if I learn that 'a human's perception of volume is linked (through the F-M curve) to the sound's own frequency' (even if I dont fully understand the science of it).... then its only a small step in 'reverse engineering' to realise how my mixing desk flashy lights should be sitting relative to each other based on that fact...SO... (based on the idea that all channels are arranged in Freq.order, Left to Right, Low Freqs to High Freqs~like a piano keyboard) ~ using the F-M curve "as a rough Guideline"... its seems pretty logical that all the flasy lights on the mixer will roughly fall in a 45 degree line , Left to Right, top to bottom ! ......
|
|
...except the F-M curve isn't a 45-degree line, and the frequency response of your mixer channel meters is probably not linear - and like I said before most sounds (and therefore individual mixer channels) contain a wide range of frequencies and don't sit on one single point on the curve anyway  It's fine if you're mixing sine waves but for anything more complex your method just wouldn't give you a good mix.
Fair enough though, if you want to mix your tracks according to a generalised, statistically-averaged description of how 'the average' ear responds to sound (rather than by actually listening to the track and training your own analytical skills) go ahead.
I still firmly believe that in our context (that of dance music producers) the primary use of the F-M curve is as a distraction from the real task of refining our critical listening skills and knowledge of our chosen tools. It's intellectually interesting but ultimately it doesn't help us make our music better, and I bet you any money that more people make better music not knowing about it than knowing.
I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.
  Mastering - http://mastering.OOOD.net :: www.is.gd/mastering
OOOD 5th album 'You Think You Are' - www.is.gd/tobuyoood :: www.OOOD.net
www.facebook.com/OOOD.music :: www.soundcloud.com/oood
Contact for bookings/mastering - colin@oood.net |
|
|
|
Boobytrip
IsraTrance Junior Member
Started Topics :
39
Posts :
988
Posted : Mar 23, 2006 11:44
|
I know i have to train my ears for years until my mixes sound anywhere near the stuff Colin produces But using a standard, fixed mixing level appears to be good practice, isn't difficult and won't hurt (it will probably help). It also won't distract from the real task of refining critical listening skill (it't not an either/or choice) so what's the problem ?
Anyway, this is what Bob Katz recommends:
"Equal Loudness Contours:
Mastering engineers are more inclined to work with a constant monitor gain. But many music mixing engineers work ata much higher SPL, and also vary their monitor gain to check the mix at different SPLs. I recommend that mix engineers calibrate your monitor attenuators so you can always return to the recommended standard for the majority of the mix. Otherwise it is likely the mix will not translate to other venues, since the equal-loudness contours indicate a program will be bass-shy when reproduced at a lower (normal) level."
|
|
|
|
gaianide
Started Topics :
1
Posts :
34
Posted : Mar 23, 2006 14:05
|
I'm with Colin on this.
It's interesting reading about the F.M. Curve. However, if I completely forget tomorrow everything I learnt about it, I don't think it would change my mixing skills. Mixing is an art form to me, and some study is good for you, but ultimately you should just be getting on with it and gaining skills through listening and knowing your tools. |
|
|
|
br0d
IsraTrance Junior Member
Started Topics :
12
Posts :
355
Posted : Mar 25, 2006 16:36
|
|
Knowing about the F-M curve is important, knowing the ins and outs is not. |
|
|
|
Raoul V
IsraTrance Junior Member
Started Topics :
26
Posts :
583
Posted : Mar 27, 2006 11:07
|
Just brushing on the whole 'how loud to listen while ur mixing'..
I like mixing at all diff levels, v. loud then v. soft then normal volume just to get a 'feel'.
i was told by a producer that with dance music the intended output is always big sound and so one must ensure that they play the mix back at high as well as low volumes because the final output will be heard, on home stereo, in ur car or on a big pa.... |
|
|
|
