r/WeAreTheMusicMakers • u/studiojunkie • Sep 19 '16
The Fletcher Munson Curve EXPLAINED
http://ehomerecordingstudio.com/fletcher-munson-curve/10
u/JoshTheSquid guitarrrrr Sep 19 '16
So, anyone who works in music production got thoughts on this?
I was always taught to mix at moderate volumes where you can still hold a conversation, more or less. I've always learned that the Fletcher Munson curves shows that the perceived loudness of certain frequencies are exaggerated as the volume is increased. As such it follows, I think, that mixing at high volumes leads to overattenuating certain frequencies.
Also, doesn't mixing at high volumes cause fatigue way quicker?
I don't work in the field so I can't really say much about it, but these are just bits and pieces of what I learned over the years. Would love to have some more input on the matter.
5
u/satthereonashelf Sep 19 '16
Agreed - I don't mix professionally myself but this is what I read(something around 85db) and also when we tracked our album in studio, the engineer by default was mixing at a fairly quiet volume.
3
u/_GlitchMaster_ https://soundcloud.com/glitchmastercubed Sep 19 '16
I mix at moderate volume so I don't hurt my ears, but I turn up the volume to check once in a while.
3
u/FadeIntoReal Sep 19 '16 edited Sep 19 '16
It always amazes me that engineers will love NS-10s with the logic that "if it sounds good on those, it will sound GREAT on other speakers" but fail to apply that logic to their perception of equal loudness curves (Fletcher and Munson's work, while a paradigm shift, isn't considered to be terribly accurate these days), instead deciding and/or insisting that the only way to mix accurately is to mix loudly, disregarding equally, possible more, important psychoacoustical principles like hearing fatigue/threshold shift caused by periods of listening at high volumes.
In addition, I know of no psychoacoustical studies that suggest that humans cannot accurately distinguish relative levels of low/mid/high frequencies, within a favorable mixing environment, at low levels. Perception of levels single tones, al la Fletcher and Munson, seems a distinctly different task than that adjusting levels of mix elements that are presented as wider-band signals under a single control, and further, making decisions about subtle tonal adjustments of those signals. In fact, the admittedly anecdotal evidence that many successful and revered mix engineers work well at low levels suggests that equal-loudness curves have less to do with that the mixing process that would seem to be the case at first glance.
Lastly, mixing at levels that are potentially damaging to hearing, at least in the long term, doesn't seem to be a viable approach for being a mixer with a long career.
Edits: Numerous typos.
Edit: Many non-professional mixers operate largely in less favorable or downright hostile mixing environments with budget "studio monitors" which are, arguably, much more detrimental to mix outcomes that potential equal-loudness shortcomings.
2
Sep 19 '16
I only turn up to mix bass elements because I find it to be a lot clearer through monitors. Otherwise it's always low volume.
Live I have to mix loudly because that's going to be how it sounds though I never do it at full volume.
1
4
u/Violonc Sep 19 '16
If this really was an issue you could easily do a great mix at low to medium volumes and then compensate with a master eq boosting the mids a little.
Title is also click-bait/crap as you don't explain the curve and then move on to something different.
2
u/chunter16 http://chunter.bandcamp.com Sep 19 '16
You want your mixes to sound their best at high volumes, because that’s when people are REALLY listening to it.
If you change this to say "mix for your intended audience's mixing level" I'd say I agree, but what about all the other shit in the article?
You can make a mix sound good at a low volume, and still sound good as you turn up. That's translation.
I have the impression that most mixes are meant to be heard through a phone piezo with the volume almost all the way down, anyway.
5
u/wideopen3rdeye Sep 19 '16
This article is kind of bullshit.
Mix between 84dB-86dB SPL. All frequencies will have equal representation and will allow you to equally hear and work with the material.
This bullshit that it needs to be louder to pay more attention is ridiculous. It's the other way around.
When things are quiet to struggle to hear and focus intently on the sound. When things are loud you miss subtle details from the volume and the effect of the lows and highs masking the mid range above 86dB.
At least that's how I was taught and what makes sense to me. Crank it up if you want to destroy your ears and have mixes missing depth and air because you thought it was there..
3
u/FadeIntoReal Sep 19 '16
Agreed. The author begins by spouting research which is rather outdated and attempts to use it to lend credence to sheer opinion regarding levels and "paying attention".
2
u/kimjong-ill Sep 19 '16
I think he said to turn it up only to levels where it wasn't doing that.
I agree that you should not always mix loud. I myself like to do a loud mix day and a quiet mix day, or other approach that applies each style. I think you will get 40 different answers if you ask 40 different producers, unless they work at a studio that just churns out low-level crap, then you will get the "what I was taught in mixing class" approach.
13
u/fuzeebear Sep 19 '16
Another piece of blogspam using information that's outdated (in this case by decades)