Daily Near-field Calibration Discussion

[Napping]

In another thread I started on workflow, a very interesting discussion has been going on regarding appropriate calibration for daily monitoring in the near-field. There is almost a dogma around monitoring at 79 for TV and 85 for film. I understand that working to a standard like that allows for professionals to know where they stand anywhere and let their ears do the rest. Just getting into post myself, I find this level can be rather loud on my NS-10M setup. I come from music and tend to monitor at conversation level, turning it up to check things and vibe occasionally, but having a pretty chill average monitoring level. With most music mixed just under full scale these days I keep my monitors turned down pretty low. Now working in post at -24 LKFS I have tried calibrating to 79 as is suggested, but a lot of the time that feels really loud! I have always been careful with my ears in the studio and in life all around. Furthermore, many great music mixers recommend mixing at lower volume to better gauge balancing levels in a mix. I have found this to be true. It all blends at high volume. It seems like this is at odds with a workflow standard in post rooted in efficiency, deadlines and the dub stage. Anyhow, there are some strong opinions from all angles and I thought I'd start a thread specifically for this discussion to better hear them out. I hope to focus the opinions on near-field monitoring, particularly our reliable yet abrasive pal, the NS10M. Thanks!

[James Drake]

The idea about calibrating monitor levels is so that if it sounds loud it is loud. So turn your mix down until it is how you like it. You don't need to (and shouldn't be) hitting full scale.

[Napping]

Sure, but I have to hit spec. And to hit even a conservative -24 LKFS TV spec it gets very loud. But maybe you're right. Maybe it's my mixing and I just have too much high mid range in the mix drilling my ears. Definitely the more feedback from you guys the better. I mixed at 79 to that spec doing sound design/scoring/mixing this week and mostly found it comfortable, though I did turn it down often. However, when I was just doing mixing on a commercial last week it was far too loud. I wasn't going to monitor like that. Both hit the same spec. Maybe the way I treated the material on the commercial I mixed was different on account of not being at 79 and the more recent one could be mixed better. Interesting consideration. I did have someone say that the one before calibrating was a little "trebly." However, it had VO which needed to cut and it needed to punch harder all the way around compared with the type of material I dealt with this week which was all music and sound design. Additionally, when I get to produce the material I can better control it. Do you work on near-fields at 79?

[SD2]

Originally Posted by James Drake

The idea about calibrating monitor levels is so that if it sounds loud it is loud. So turn your mix down until it is how you like it. You don't need to (and shouldn't be) hitting full scale.

You never hit full scale (=0dBFs) when mixing for TV.
Now, with EBU R128, you can't go beyond -3dBTP (which is of course less than -3dBFs with a QPPM metering) and the average -23LUFS required is really far from "Full Scale".

[Napping]

Full scale was mentioned in reference to modern music production. Just an aside. I also mentioned how when doing music I keep the average volume at conversational level, raising it for checks and vibe. That's quite low compared to what we're at here. It was merely a contrast I made. Has nothing to do with mixing for post at 79 on near-field monitors. That's what interests me. Does everyone mix on near-fields at 79? With a full and kicking mix isn't that pretty loud even at -23 LUFS or -24 LKFS? I understand going louder to check things, but mixing all the time calibrated that loud seems pretty aggressive on the ears. Again, specifically in reference to near-field monitoring. What James said made me wonder if I wasn't hitting the mid-range too hard with EQ, though. Maybe that's why it hurts But -24 LKFS is -24 LKFS and it can be damn loud at 79.

[Postman]

My room is "tiny" compared to many. For -24 specs I usually have my monitor level at 75 or 76 (depending on the particualr show).

[cananball]

I think the problem is the NS10's

[DJ Insomaniac]

My room's fairly small and I'm closer to the speakers that I'd like to be, so I stick around 76dB SPL on my system. That translates well to other mix rooms at 79 or 85, depending on the size.

If tone at a reference level seems too loud, the system is probably too loud, and your mixes will be too soft if you try to mix by ear. There are some good measurements for this in this ATSC A/85 Document, around page 49.

[groundcontrol]

Exactly. That's one part of the problem. The NS-10s (which I know and have used extensively for stereo music) might not be the most appropriate speakers for post. Something like BM-5As might be more appropriate if your room is small.

[Napping]

Groundcontrol, you monitor near-field on the BM-5A at 79 comfortably? or on whatever monitor you use, Cananball? If you monitor on the BM-5A and go to the NS10, do you feel like it's suddenly louder? I'm not being defensive, but do you? I wonder if maybe you're just comfortable near-field at 79? I see these monitors as a mediocrity filter. If what I push through the NS10 sounds good, then it is. No surprises. That said, I fully intend to get an additional pair of monitors with more clarity for post. I don't think they are necessarily the best post monitors. Still, not really interested in another monitor right now. I'm just starting out. I've made under $1,000 in almost 2 months. I have no idea how I'm going to pay rent in a few days, never mind getting sparkle monitors. I have two projects to turn in Monday and will hopefully make it by the skin of my teeth. I don't really see my monitors as the issue here, though. 79 is 79 and loud is loud. The NS10 may not go easy when yelling, but this is yelling either way, right? That's two people pointing at the NS10, but it doesn't seem relevant. If you guys calibrate to 79 on an NS10 setup and calibrate on another monitor and find that you are comfortable with one and not the other, then I guess I should listen to you. But it doesn't add up to me. To get a reading of 79 it has to be 79, regardless of the monitor. The way the NS10 does 79 doesn't seem like a meaningful factor. I know they aren't vanilla monitors, but this is a volume thing, right? Hmmm...

Postman, thanks! Will sit at 75/76 tomorrow and see how it goes.

Insomniac, thanks! That's two for 76. Thanks also for the ATSC chart. Have to figure out how to measure my room. Heh.