85 db monitoring volume

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

David M <davidsetagaya@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>I've read (not sure how true this is, perhaps another discussion?) that
>the optimal volume for monitoring is 85 db.

The optimal volume for monitoring is the volume that the stuff will be
played back at. 85 dB seems reasonable for foreground music.

>Assuming that this is true, is there any way to find out what the
>decibel level of my listening level is without buying a decibel meter?
>Not sure how expensive these are, but I doubt I have the money to buy
>one.

I think the Radio Shack one is still less than thirty dollars, and it's
accurate enough for the job. Get their cheaper one, not the more expensive
(and mostly useless) digital one.

>Is there a way to calculate the value of the output of the speakers
>using the wattage or other information about my system?
>I'm using sonar 4 with a MOTU 828mkII and Behringer 2031a active
>nearfield monitors.

How do you propose to measure the wattage? You'd have to open the cabinets
up. If you had a relationship between input voltage and output level that
you trusted (ie. not the fake marketing lies on the data sheet) and you had
accurate input metering, you could calculate SPL. But accurate input metering
will probably cost you a lot more then the Radio Shack SPL meter.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

David M wrote:
> Hi Everyone,
>
> I've read (not sure how true this is, perhaps another discussion?)
that
> the optimal volume for monitoring is 85 db.
>
> Assuming that this is true, is there any way to find out what the
> decibel level of my listening level is without buying a decibel
meter?
> Not sure how expensive these are, but I doubt I have the money to buy
> one.
>
> Is there a way to calculate the value of the output of the speakers
> using the wattage or other information about my system?
> I'm using sonar 4 with a MOTU 828mkII and Behringer 2031a active
> nearfield monitors.
>
> Thanks to all the experts out there, you guys are great.
>
> david

The good points about 85db; it's in the middle of the
Fletcher-Munson curve so it's a good compromise for how the high and
low frequencies will be perceived on playback; it's not real taxing on
your ears; and the OSHA guidelines permit worker exposure to that level
of noise on the job for 16 hours a day. Kinda loud for typical TV
mixing though, but then there are other things you have to listen to at
the same time in that gig.

A level meter is only about $30-35 new at radio shack, but if you
are the tweaky kind you can probably find something online that will
work as a plugin with you daw and a mic..

Maybe the "Virtual Minirator" will do it? I'm not sure, but I think
there is a free version available online, maybe at the Realtraps
website.

Will Miho
NY Music and TV Audio Guy
Staff Audio / Fox News / M-AES
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On 1 Apr 2005 08:12:33 -0800, "David M" <davidsetagaya@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>Hi Everyone,
>
>I've read (not sure how true this is, perhaps another discussion?) that
>the optimal volume for monitoring is 85 db.

There's one or more articles on monitoring levels at
<http://digido.com>. There's lots of good reading on that site.

>Assuming that this is true, is there any way to find out what the
>decibel level of my listening level is without buying a decibel meter?
>Not sure how expensive these are, but I doubt I have the money to buy
>one.

You could buy something to GENERATE a sound at a certain dBSPL
level, but that would not be cheap.
I recently searched for meter at radioshack.com and saw what looks
like their old analog meter in a newly-redesigned case for $39.

>Is there a way to calculate the value of the output of the speakers
>using the wattage or other information about my system?
>I'm using sonar 4 with a MOTU 828mkII and Behringer 2031a active
>nearfield monitors.

Now that you mention it, there should be a sensitivity rating for
the monitors, such as the signal input voltage that gives, say,
90dBSPL sound output at 1 meter [in an anechoic chamber, YMMV, etc.].
You should be able to Y-cable one of the monitor signal cables to a
voltmeter, and calculate the sound output from that. I'd also get the
Radio Shack SPL meter and see how close these jibe. Use noise,
'active' music or something with a wide frequency range, to average
out the variations in monitor response and room resonances. A fixed
tone is likely not to do well, unless you average out dozens or
hundreds of different frequencies.

>Thanks to all the experts out there, you guys are great.
>
>david

-----
http://mindspring.com/~benbradley

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Hi Everyone, thanks a lot for the responses. and sorry that this
question is definitely a newbie one. Seeing that the decibel meters
are pretty cheap (cost of a dinner date), and that I recently broke up
with my girlfriend, I guess I can stay in a night this week and head
the Casa Royal (the Chilean version of Radio Shack) and pick up one of
those decibel meters. (Assuming they have it in stock, etc.)

Jim Gregory wrote:
> What source said that so rigidly?

That information mainly comes from the book Modern Recording
Techniques, Fourth Edition by Huber and Runstein. (page 50) He
diagrams the Fletcher-Munson equal loudness contour for pure tones as
perceived by average human hearing (charted to relative sound pressure
levels at 1000Hz). Again, I'm definitely no expert, so it seems like
85db is too loud for normal working, but mixing and reference is
appropriate?
I'll mainly be mixing music that'll be destined for club and home
stereo play. Influential Engineers of a similar sound I'm looking for
= Rich Travali, Pat Viala, Mauricio Iragorri. (In addition to the
bigger names of course).

Thanks everyone,
David

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On 4/1/05 1:56 PM, in article PPg3e.2555$vv2.1103@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net, "Jim
Gregory" <jim.greg@ntlworld.com> wrote:

> What source said that so rigidly?

Oh pretty much every real study and opinion of the broadest spectrum of
endinggers and mixers in every field that sits behind a mixing desk for the
last 20 years or so.
That's all.
It's also a set SMPTE standard.

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

> That information mainly comes from the book Modern Recording
> Techniques, Fourth Edition by Huber and Runstein. (page 50) He

That's a great book, but I believe he meant for 85dB to be a rule of thumb
for the reasons mentioned. As others have pointed out, other factors will
have an effect of the best monitoring volume.

In practice, if you're mixing down for 4 hours, you will NOT want to listen
@ 85dB the whole time, especially if your clients are, shall we say
"musically challenged." I usually start out mixing at relatively quiet
volumes to get a good rough mix and then turn 'er up to get a final mix.

--

Jonny Durango

"Patrick was a saint. I ain't."

http://www.jdurango.com

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"David M" <davidsetagaya@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1112371953.546575.65930@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com
> Hi Everyone,
>
> I've read (not sure how true this is, perhaps another discussion?)
> that the optimal volume for monitoring is 85 db.

Would that be peak or average level?

> Assuming that this is true, is there any way to find out what the
> decibel level of my listening level is without buying a decibel
meter?
> Not sure how expensive these are, but I doubt I have the money to
buy
> one.

Given the equipment you already have, you probably do have the money
to buy a halfways-decent SPL meter. Stop by your local Radio Shack.
Or, surf eBay.

http://www.radioshack.com/product. [...] id=33-4050

This is not the final word in SPL meters, but it is a good enough
piece of equipment to put you in the ball park.

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <tdms41lm9ptd35v0i70bhirhmvb3rhe417@4ax.com> wrywer writes:

> I have the 33-2050 rat shack analog meter. Is this 85db suppossed to
> be measured on the A or C setting?

C, with slow response time, preferably with pink noise as the source.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On 4/2/05 3:37 AM, in article tdms41lm9ptd35v0i70bhirhmvb3rhe417@4ax.com,
"spud" <rtekrt@dfasdlf.com> wrote:

> I have the 33-2050 rat shack analog meter. Is this 85db suppossed to
> be measured on the A or C setting?

C-WEIGHTED.
A-WEIGHTING places a filter set on the meter that only measures midrange
sounds. It's designed to measure environmental noise with the idea that
you;re only looking at things that are most annoying, in that range. I
rarely use A-weighting.


>One of them was so loud at the
> listening position I can't imagine anyone tolerating it for more than
> a few minutes. s.

That would be really compressed pop music played at 85dB average


>

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Mike Rivers wrote:

>>85 db? Isn't that about like driving down the road in a convertible?
>
>
> Sure - with the radio blasting at 85 dB.

Ok, according to this, 85 db is somewhere between a noisy restaurant and
the sound of Niagara Falls.


http://www.vibrationdata.com/acoustics.htm

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"spud" <rtekrt@dfasdlf.com> wrote in message
news:tdms41lm9ptd35v0i70bhirhmvb3rhe417@4ax.com...
>I have the 33-2050 rat shack analog meter. Is this 85db suppossed to
> be measured on the A or C setting? One of them was so loud at the
> listening position I can't imagine anyone tolerating it for more than
> a few minutes. s.
>


Spud,
Hope I don't aggravate the rest of the group by sending a jpg, but here
is the graph that goes with your 2050. "C" is a fairly flat response from
50 Hz. to 2KHz then rise and drop off (Human ear?) at 20 KHz down about -16
db. The manual describes unsafe exposure levels begin at 90 db for 8 hours.
85 db as loud orchestra but who sits that close? Did any one get into the
part where 1 KHz. at 85 db is intolerable but the occasional peak at 85 db
can be a pleasant surprise. Music is in the head of the listener!
Regards Dave B______________

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Actually I believe it's 82 dB if one uses Bob Katz' method of calibrating
your system, but with rotary output levels on my Soundtracs the accuracy
isn't too terribly good, so I accept between 80 and 85 dB (faders nominal).
And, if one is using Win2k vs XP, it's possible to have an output difference
between them that requires two calibration setups to have the same signal
level, but as long as one is aware, that's another calibration that only
needs doing once and mark it. This does make the wild hair assumption that
what you are working on is consistent. Doesn't have to have the same
dynamics, etc., just that it's consistent. I don't have to change my
settings at all from project to project because my mixing brings me to a set
level of about -15 dB at RMS average with a hard limit of -.1 dB.

However, these are not the loudest CDs one could produce. They represent
what I find to be a reasonable goal and when listened to on my system
generally produce about 82 dB when measured from the mixing position with
the analog RS SPL meter on C weighting. And if the product is the Navy
Commodores big band or some of DC's local Hula Monsters, it appears to work
quite well. It also leaves enough dynamic headroom that most mastering
engineers have room to work.

I've never considered looking at the output of the speakers as being of a
concern to know what the wattage is one way or the other. It's what and how
you put the information into the speakers, not what it takes them to
reproduce it.

As someone else mentioned, it's a reasonable range to work with for 16 hours
under OSHA guidelines without damage to the ears (a TV usually is about 65
dB), assuming one has non-fatiguing monitors in the first place.
--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio
http://blogs.salon.com/0004478/
"David M" <davidsetagaya@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1112371953.546575.65930@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Hi Everyone,
>
> I've read (not sure how true this is, perhaps another discussion?) that
> the optimal volume for monitoring is 85 db.
>
> Assuming that this is true, is there any way to find out what the
> decibel level of my listening level is without buying a decibel meter?
> Not sure how expensive these are, but I doubt I have the money to buy
> one.
>
> Is there a way to calculate the value of the output of the speakers
> using the wattage or other information about my system?
> I'm using sonar 4 with a MOTU 828mkII and Behringer 2031a active
> nearfield monitors.
>
> Thanks to all the experts out there, you guys are great.
>
> david
>

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Fletch wrote:
> WillStG wrote:
>
> > The good points about 85db; it's in the middle of the
> > Fletcher-Munson curve so it's a good compromise for how the high
and
> > low frequencies will be perceived on playback; it's not real taxing
on
> > your ears; and the OSHA guidelines permit worker exposure to that
level
> > of noise on the job for 16 hours a day.
>
> I work in a high decibel environment and the guidelines our on site
Environmental guy gave me is 8
> hours at 85 db.

That's probably because once the noise exposure level equals 85db
OSHA requires the employer install a level monitoring program at the
site, institute a "Hearing Conservation Program", train all his
employees in such program, and maintain records on each employee's
actual exposure for 2 years running. So keeping levels below that save
them a lot of time and money.

I do agree 85db is a bit loud for constant listening, but on the
other hand having been a Tape Op on lots of sessions (including RAP and
R&B,) I can testify many recording and mixing engineers listen a LOT
louder than that.

Will Miho
NY Music and TV Audio Guy
Staff Audio/Fox News/M-AES
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits