# Standards for Music Mixing and Production



## AudiocRaver (Jun 6, 2012)

Cinema sound has mixing and production standards. The music business does not. Would the music business be better or worse off with mixing and production standards?


----------



## Peter Loeser (Aug 11, 2012)

Interesting question.

If I understand the goal of the cinema standards, it is to link the mixing environment (studio) with the viewing environment (commercial theater) through the use of standardized equipment, configurations, processing, EQ, etc. The viewers see and hear what the producers see and hear. Even with home theater being at least a small portion of the target audience, we have THX, Dobly, etc. to bring some consistency there.

For music, the producers have no control over the end user's listening environment. Anything from the iPod white headphones to a gazillion dollar hifi system. To me it would seem harder to make such a broad link to the studio environment. Also, maybe with music it's best to leave room for the artistic tastes and abilities of the performers, producers, engineers, etc. Standards might not make it worse, but might only improve things for a very narrow group of listeners.

my 2¢.


----------



## sdurani (Oct 28, 2010)

At the very least I would introduce a reference level as in industry-wide standard. IF they can't decide on one, use the one from the motion picture industry (will maintain some consistency). This will at least allow things like loudness compensation to know how far from reference level you're listening at.


----------



## tonyvdb (Sep 5, 2007)

One of my biggest gripes with the music industry is the studios who use alot of compression known as the "loudness wars". If there would be more of a standard or agreement that this was a no-no we as the end user would have a much better mix to listen to.


----------



## AudiocRaver (Jun 6, 2012)

> If I understand the goal of the cinema standards, it is to link the mixing environment (studio) with the viewing environment
> 
> For music, the producers have no control over the end user's listening environment.


It is a bit hard to define the listening environment for music.



> At the very least I would introduce a reference level as in industry-wide standard.


That would be a start. Isn't there already a suggested 80 dB one-speaker standard? Which no one pays attention to? For music, I like 80 dB better than 85 dB, which seems high for a home listening environment, and high for headphones, too.



> One of my biggest gripes with the music industry is the studios who use alot of compression known as the "loudness wars". If there would be more of a standard or agreement that this was a no-no we as the end user would have a much better mix to listen to


A standard listening level (SPL) and a dynamic range standard (K-level 14 dB?) would be a great start. What numbers sound right? I like 80 dB one-speaker standard level, and 14 dB dynamic range. 14 dB is probably not enough for classical, though, probably need to go 20.

Any thoughts on what the listening level and dynamic range numbers should be?

One more thought: Some people would "miss" the horrendous compression in pop music.


----------



## tonyvdb (Sep 5, 2007)

AudiocRaver said:


> Any thoughts on what the listening level and dynamic range numbers should be?


Thats a tough one but your idea of 14db would be better than nothing. 
I have some amazing jazz fusion recordings that have wonderful dynamic range and nice deep lows. When people come over that have not heard my system those are the ones I pop in and play.



> One more thought: Some people would "miss" the horrendous compression in pop music.


Those are the same people who think 128bps MP3 files are sufficient. So I dont think they even know what a good recording sounds like.


----------



## AudiocRaver (Jun 6, 2012)

tonyvdb said:


> Those are the same people who think 128bps MP3 files are sufficient. So I dont think they even know what a good recording sounds like.


I like to have fun exposing listeners to better recordings, more dynamic range, etc. Most can hear the difference. Some just don't care. For those who do, a standard that allows for some dynamic range would - hopefully - be appreciated.


----------



## awesome wells (Jan 1, 2010)

Essentially these cinema standards say that all cinemas will sound +/- the same when playing a certified product through a certified system. This can only work in a playback environment where system audio gain is fixed, because the last element in the audio production chain is the listening environment. The home playback environment (especially for music) is quite different. We have a Volume control. We are masters of our playback environment. Those who advocate allowing the loudness NAZIs into my playback room are in for a shock! As to the "loudness war", it is over, WE WON. Most musicians and my fellow producers are SO over the whole concept of "make everything as loud as everything else". There is a strong resurgence in the use of analog gear and the delights of wide dynamic range. At the same time, we have the technology to keep audio elements "up the front" if we need to. The standards as advocated would have no impact on over compressed material in any case, you would just hear that squashed audio at a lower or higher volume.
When I work I have three major "standard" levels (not measured in dBSPL, but in sharpie marks!):
Soft, which I use for most of my work; this allows extended listening times without ear fatigue.
Moderate, for checking elements within the mix. Fatigue is likely after an hour or so.
Pretty Loud, to get the visceral effect of the bass; also to bring smiles to my clients' faces. Only for a track or two!
NOTE: I can over-compress at any of these levels. 
There is of course a final element, the dynamic range of the playback environment. This varies from say, my mixing room, a VERY quiet place with plenty of amp power and headroom, where I can just about hear electrons talking to each other; the inside of your car on the freeway, the pub on Saturday night, where the band is competing with the football on TV. This is where a new approach is overdue. Put compression in the hands of the consumer! In a quiet room you leave it off. As the ambient noise increases, you could have a couple more choices for program compression...this would allow for louder soft signals, while controlling the very loudest stuff, thereby making the whole thing more intelligible and enjoyable.
Certainly consumers have been led down a path of reducing quality over the years, closely matching the continuing shrinking of the playback gear and earbuds. but things are getting better and better; the latest Mastering For ITunes droplet can produce extremely high quality compressed files. I recently downloaded a remastered Dark Side Of The Moon from ITunes and I think it sounds fantastic. Consumers are beginning to receive the best of what digital can offer.

Phew! sorry for all that. Feel free to reply, I enjoy tossing ideas back and forth.

Steve
Awesome Wells Studio
Western Australia


----------



## bugal1998 (Sep 9, 2009)

I think we should have just a few standards such as a reference level and perhaps dynamic range. I certainly don't believe we should pander to the lowest common denominator of audio playback systems. If someone has a pathetic audio system, then let it sound bad. We cheat everyone when music is engineered to sound acceptable on 25 cent earbuds and clock radios. Let the hardware respond to the demands of the music, not the other way around. Audio playback should be about the music, not the system.


----------



## AudiocRaver (Jun 6, 2012)

I certainly agree. The hard part is giving mixing & mastering engineers a reason to comply. With cinema, the methods of distribution for consumption in theaters and, to some degree, home theater equipment _push_ engineers to use the existing standards. With music, there is no such push that is obvious anyway. Other than "louder sells better."


----------



## bugal1998 (Sep 9, 2009)

AudiocRaver said:


> I certainly agree. The hard part is giving mixing & mastering engineers a reason to comply. With cinema, the methods of distribution for consumption in theaters and, to some degree, home theater equipment _push_ engineers to use the existing standards. With music, there is no such push that is obvious anyway. Other than "louder sells better."


Well of course you're correct, the money trail works against any such standard. So while I do believe there should be at least some minimal standards, there are many reasons why I doubt it will ever happen.

Oh, and thanks for the welcome!:wave:


----------



## rongon (Aug 23, 2012)

Having worked in the music biz back in the 1980s and 90s, I would say that trying to enforce a reference standard would be really difficult for music recordings. One reason is that music is a *lot* cheaper to make than big-production movies, so is much more of a cottage industry. Especially now that you can make a home studio for less than $10k that can yield results every bit as good as most "pro" music productions. (This requires a lot of care, technical savvy and good ears on the part of any home studio's designer, constructor and engineer. Results are based on far more than the gear alone.) 

Being that music production gear is so accessible, the industry could try as hard as it wants, but someone will come out with a hit song from out of left field that disobeys all the rules and standards. And if it sells, then it will be perceived as "good." Others will promptly follow. 

In other words, the industry could try to define a standard for this or that, but it will be promptly ignored by content creators. The music biz is always being driven in new directions by artists coming from outside the mainstream. And I believe that is actually a good thing. 

Finally, there is a standard of sorts. The 0dB full scale (0dBFS) limit of all digital recordings creates a ceiling for just how loud loud can be. You can't go any higher than 0, you can only record a level below or equal to 0dBFS. This is not the case with analog recordings. If you want to overmodulate analog tape by xdB, then sure, if people like it, go ahead. Nobody can stop you. That's not the case with PCM recording. 0dBFS is the absolute ceiling. 

Just some thoughts. 
--


----------

