hello sir, I am pretty surprised about your comment, that you cannot see the merit in calibration of speakers in your room identical to pink noise slope of equal energy per octave, if this is a mis-characterization of your position please forgive me.




https://www.gearslutz.com/board/stu...going-here-flat-response-sounds-terrible.html

https://www.bksv.com/media/doc/17-197.pdf






http://arqen.com/acoustics-101/acoustic-measurement-primer/


https://www.google.com/search?biw=1...39k1j0i46k1j0i67k1j0i131k1j0i20k1.tHQOBgiqORg


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colors_of_noise








"What does add "next level of detail to [my] mix shape" even mean?"

so level I is pink noise shape this is how you begin to set the volume levels of your tracks says bass, drums, hi hats, snare, vocals, strings, background vocals etc. you use the pink noise shape to set your volume levels real quick.
Level II, you roughly begin to fine tune that shape more with equal loudness contour shapes when you eq shape transients and dynamics of your individual tracks that you already established the volumes for with Level I (pink noise slope)

Level III is now you have you mix ready for final details and adjustments you use your reference tracks to further shape your frequency response that you had established in level I and refined a bit in level II .

you can spend a few mins on each step, and each is done at a different stage in your mix process. you only spend a few mins on each step and your final outcome is professional and did not take long.

the specifc things you are actually doing during each step.

Level I pink noise ( actually adjusting volumes of each instrument in your track so that the whole MIX adds up to pink noise slope -3 db per octave displayed on master buss fader using a spectrum analyzer )
Level II equal loudness contour,( actually eqing, compressing, adding harmonics, using reverb etc to each track so that the sum represents a fine tuning to your level I you are building on.)
Level III using reference tracks, ( actually fine tuning the individual instruments in each octave using various tools from level to panning to comp to de-essing to reverb or delay to limiting etc. so that you further shape the entirety of your mix so it is relative to you reference tracks that you are alternating back and forth with)

each new level is fine adjusting what you established previous levels.
READ THIS fine sir,

https://www.gearslutz.com/board/stu...going-here-flat-response-sounds-terrible.html

 

Last edited: Aug 7, 2017

i took a snapshot inside of DAW of the frequency response of the top 3 songs on the pop charts as well as pure white noise.
This is a visual of the sound of all these BEFORE it hits any speakers.
next you want to calibrate your speakers and your room as one thing so that if you played the white noise track with a mic in multiple locations of the listening room it would display the same frequency response as shown in the graph BEFORE it gets to the speakers.
in order to do that you MUST calibrate your speakers and room as one unit to identical slope of pink noise, then the final frequency response shape of playback into the room will match the same as before it gets to the speakers.

https://www.gearslutz.com/board/stu...going-here-flat-response-sounds-terrible.html
this link to this threads explains more about that calibration of the speakers and room as one unit.

we have 2 different usages regarding pink noise.
I. calibration of speakers and room as one unit so that room captured through flat mic equals identical shape as before it came out speakers.
II. when actually mixing we begin with pink noise slope to adjust volumes when tracking initially, this is because our final MIX will be equal energy per octave.( further shaped by equal loudness profile and reference tracks of genre the MIX is in.

 

Last edited: Aug 7, 2017

Again, this is pointless scientification. If we start with the premise that "all commercial recordings are equalized with pink noise curve, just as all vinyl was equalized with the RIAA curve," then we can [reasonably] infer that Eddy's iPhone with Dr. Dre Beats (Eddy's our target listener) won't need to be re-EQ'd from tune to tune: he dialed it in once, loves teh sick bass, he's happy. Conversely, if all commercial recordings were EQ'd flat, Eddy would turn up the the left corner of his smiley-face EQ once, and everyone would be equally happy. Any emphasis curve can be countered by its corresponding de-emphasis curve.

If Broducer_with_high-end_hearing_loss cranks the highs in his monitors, all's well -- he listens to them all the time; he listens to his favorite boy bands on the same gear; he can compare apples to apples. Now if Bro's mom reads up on the importance of pink noise speaker calibration, and re-calibrates Bro's setup, Bro's lost. And that's what I meat by "don't recalibrate your monitors before you mix."

TL;DR: If you want your track to sound like your reference track, listen to it through the same gear you mix with, and make yours sound similar. If your setup is mis-EQ'd, it will mis-EQ both the ref. track & your product. If A+(EQ curve) = B+(EQ curve), A=B, which is [presumably] the desired outcome. Seems evident on its face :\

 

maybe I'm wrong, but I think your are misunderstanding something along the way.

first when you say "Again, this is pointless scientification."

I dont understand what that combination of words is supposed convey.

when you say

"If we start with the premise that "all commercial recordings are equalized with pink noise curve,"

that is not the language to describe what is happening. it is not that you eq your mix to look like something else that it didn't start out as.
instead imagine you have a kick drum a snare drum a hi hat and a cymbal they all just directly recorded with no plugins or effects or outboard gear just straight from microphones or samplers.
the first thing you do is adjust the volume of your faders for each one of these instruments.but you dont adjust the volumes in a way that would look "flat" like white noise, if you did your hihats be way too loud kick drum too quiet etc. those tracks adjusted correct volume would show up as a pink noise slope on your spectrum analyzer meter on master buss, or equal energy per octave to your ear. ( same as you add in the rest of the instruments of your whole song.)
the pink noise slope is not a artificial adjustment . the pink noise slope means equal energy per octave or in other words to the ear everything is perfectly balanced lows mids highs equal to each other.



"
just as all vinyl was equalized with the RIAA curve," then we can [reasonably] infer that Eddy's iPhone with Dr. Dre Beats (Eddy's our target listener) won't need to be re-EQ'd from tune to tune: he dialed it in once, loves teh sick bass, he's happy. Conversely, if all commercial recordings were EQ'd flat, Eddy would turn up the the left corner of his smiley-face EQ once, and everyone would be equally happy. Any emphasis curve can be countered by its corresponding de-emphasis curve.

If Broducer_with_high-end_hearing_loss cranks the highs in his monitors, all's well -- he listens to them all the time; he listens to his favorite boy bands on the same gear; he can compare apples to apples. Now if Bro's mom reads up on the importance of pink noise speaker calibration, and re-calibrates Bro's setup, Bro's lost. And that's what I meat by "don't recalibrate your monitors before you mix."

TL;DR: If you want your track to sound like your reference track, listen to it through the same gear you mix with, and make yours sound similar. If your setup is mis-EQ'd, it will mis-EQ both the ref. track & your product. If A+(EQ curve) = B+(EQ curve), A=B, which is [presumably] the desired outcome. Seems evident on its face :\[/QUOTE]"


I don't know what is meant by what is said here can you clarify?


"If Broducer_with_high-end_hearing_loss cranks the highs in his monitors, all's well -- he listens to them all the time; he listens to his favorite boy bands on the same gear; he can compare apples to apples. Now if Bro's mom reads up on the importance of pink noise speaker calibration, and re-calibrates Bro's setup, Bro's lost."

so basically his mom turned down the treble knob, (if he has treble loss than that adjustment of raising it makes his brain interpret as equal lows mids and highs)why can't he turn it back up? why is he lost? and why shouldn't you calibrate your speakers to hear everything equally?

 

Last edited: Aug 8, 2017

Ii try this. Work perfect. For me work. I listen all instruments. Sure, i need work in vocal, and other instruments that i want to listen whit much volumen ,low, high, etc. But for reference and balance.It works for me at least.
Thanks for shared. I love it this site.

 

Now I did the same as the video. But instead of using the pink noise. Use a professional song for reference. It works well

 

Means pretty much what it says: the trappings of science (walls of charts, graphs, citing other interweb scholars) where they only serve to pad out a post. Like racks of lab gear with flashing lights and scopes with twitching Lissajous curves in 50s Sci-Fi movies: Looks very scientific and complicated, but in reality? Well... it's junk from the props room, operated by a 15-yr.-old boy from the prOnz side of the racks, less capable of producing mind-melting gamma rays than a pack of condoms.

That's literally what I do, EQ to make changes, so that my end product sounds *different* from what I start out with. Unless I'm already happy with the initial product, and wish to make no changes.

What do you mean? If I'm mastering a piano piece, say Broducer's heartfelt rendition of Chopsticks, the last thing I want is for the product's spectrum to resemble pink noise. I can say with certainty that the 27-55Hz band should be substantially lower than that of 440-880Hz (whereupon Bro finger-pokes). All without hearing a single note, caring not that the resultant spectral profile shall likely be very much, albeit not exactly, unlike pink noise :|

A great example of what I mean by scientism -- this cargo cult take on the scientific method.

What is "artificial adjustment"? As opposed to what, a natural adjustment? (define/differentiate)
Sure, pink noise has -3dB/octave slope. From this you go on to extrapolate: "to the ear everything is perfectly balanced," thus begging several more questions:
1. What's "balanced"? (define)
2. Is "balanced" a desirable state, e.g.
"Sick banger brah, mad balanced!"
"Why thank you, Young Person, kind of you to say so. It is my magnum opus, 3 Minutes of Pure, Unmodulated Pink Noise."
3. Should one strive to maximize this "balanced"? Or upset it? Or should one aim to achieve that ...je ne sais quoi, "right" balance of balancedness? Not too much balance, not too little?

Look, I get it, you like charts and graphs and measurements and things. Here's a [20 second screencap vid] playing 2 sound files: one white, one pink, and a bunch of spectrum analyzers to better see them with.

Melda's set to [1]octave bars (otherwise default), the rest are on default settings (don't overlook the one at the tippity-top, the Froot Loops one). Notice anything curious? Yeah, that -3dB/octave thing is baked in, X scale is log (the octave bands in Melda are all the same width). And default preset on Voxengo is pretty surprising. All of this has little, if anything, to do with music

 

Last edited: Aug 9, 2017

What with SO many people making references to 'bullshit' It got me thinking, does this also work with BROWN noise?

 

Eddie Van Halen's tone?

 

That wasn't QUITE what I had in mind, but yeah I'd forgotten about that!

 

Ok so i just tried this on a mix i had already done to A/B the result.... It worked I'm sold infact i think the balance of guitars and vocals were better ... Makes note to self.. 40 years mixing your never too old to learn something new .. thank you very much for the tip

 

Lambchop
we all know that anti-science leads to the best results when attempting to deal wiuth things the way they actually work right?
pssssssssssshahahaha


"
Scientism is a term generally used to describe the cosmetic application of science in unwarranted situations not covered by the scientific method."


now all I have to do is find a unwarranted situation not covered by scientific method hahahahaha
I consider science dealing with the way things actually work as opposed to fantasy or fiction. I dont see scientism as something actually existing. i cannot think of situation not covered by scientific method . I cannot find a example of human progress in a situation other than scientific method.
you might say making "art" is not scientific method you dont re-invent the wheel to do art. you actually research how sound works and impacts people how instruments work how rhythms actually work the mathematics involved in music when mixing and master it is 90 percent science the creativity in all art is due to "options" you can go this or that direction, but whatever direction you choose is the way things actually work. i cant make a phone speaker produce a 2hz note that pounds you in your chest because that is not the "way things actually work"
creativity is taking known variables and re-arranging in new ways.
art is choosing specific options to make a vision you have entirely the way things actually work.
to accomplish anything, to achieve anything to move in a direction other than self destruction, requires dealing with the way things actually work , this is not a choice we can make it is a dictatorship. reality works the way it actually does, and our minds change to match it or we fail. science is dealing with the way things actually work to learn more to advance to grow to evolve our thinking our methods our lives. nothing comes even close to science regarding any of this.
many value philosophy , I enjoy it researching it the history of it the usefulness of it per individual . but sitting in an armchair never accomplished dogshit, dealing with things the way they actually work does. Imagine the earliest cavemen that smashed the edge of a rock to get sharp object t kill their first large animals for food, that was science, that comprehension that reality requires a sharp object to penetrate the skin no human imagination can make dull weak blunt objects kill (yes bullets in guns but that works a specific way in reality too)and carve an animal for food to survive. my point is we have no choice to deal with reality, that there is a such thing as the way things really work, and trillions of ways thought of that is not accurate , we call that fiction or fake or wrong, because there is a such thing as fiction, that which is thought to be which is wrong. that which is not fiction is reality. reality actually exists, we are slaves to it always having to obey the way things actually work to accomplish anything. caring the way things work and learning what that is we call progress.

 

Last edited: Aug 10, 2017

A lab coat & a folderfull of VSTs doesn't make yo a scientist. Your cargo cult is ...well, it's the opposite of science. What I'm telling you is

...and no matter how much you refine your straw planes,
, no matter how convincing those may appear to your fellow mixologists, I assure you -- you toil in vain; goodies from the sky won't come :|

Allow me to share another protip: If you set out to art like Degas, this

is not how you should go about it

 

Last edited: Aug 10, 2017

@Lambchop, We get it........ you don't think it works.
Good for you. What is the point of these pointless comments? It is just a simple little tool that some are finding useful.

You've now repeated the same crap over and over and over and over and over and over and over.......

 

I replied to a post, which was addressed to me. Because manners.
Didn't mean to trigger you.

 

Thank you fine sir, for your input.
sorry if you didn't find that material helpful for your needs.

 

Starting posts with irrelevant or pointless, doesn't scream proper manners?

You have stated your opinion, without any supporting argument, numerous times now.
Enough

 

That ...that doesn't even parse, syntactically. You seem upset. There's no need to be.

If, in your opinion, my posts are pointless, feel free to report or ignore them. Play vidya, reconcile your bangerz with Brownian noise, worship Cthulhu, or shop for 99.99% pure colloidal silver patchcords, cryogenically treated by Tibetan monks, to take that mix to the next level. K?

 

Well, as I started this discussion let me end it before it turns nasty. Thanks to @MMJ2017 for all the technical info even if I didn't understand any of it

I tend to take a simple view of things. If something works for you then that's fine, use it and be happy. If you think it's nonsense then that's also fine, just ignore it.

 

Me too, just wanted to point out that we are already mixing with pink noise, it's baked into our spectrum analyzers. Meaning that pink noise will appear as a flat, horizontal line, while white noise will have a pronounced upslope. This is because of log X scale, which makes octave bars appear equally wide (on a linear X scale, each octave up would appear x2 as wide as the lower one).

This is easily verified via actual IRL scientific method:
1. Download or generate pink noise.
2. Download or generate white noise.
3. Open your spectrum analyzer; play files. <=click for a 20-second vid of me doing it.

See my point? Simple stuff