Thought On This 6dB Guide?

[ITHertz]

Hi All,

I know that there's a lot of discussion out there about various EQ guides such as pink noise (-3dB/oct), brown noise (-6dB/oct) and especially something in-between (-4.5dB/oct).

I came across a slightly different version of this idea in which the guide is "flat" up to 1kHz and then tapers after that.

See here https://www.audiotechnology.com/tutoria ... adphones-3

Just wondering what people think about this?

Cheers!

[sonics]

Thanks for the link. I started reading it (it's quite a long article!) and by the time I'd reached the third of fourth statement I strongly disagreed with I decided to stop reading. I may revisit it later and review it, but it's not for me, unfortunately.

So you can tell, the "noise guide" method of mixing is not something I would ever use or suggest. Reference tracks are my equivalent.

[Hugh Robjohns]

I gave up pretty quickly too, and skipping ahead found more that made my eyebrows rise...

But I do think there is some merit in the baseline noise idea. Its just a case of finding a setting and type that works for each individual.

[ITHertz]

I'm interested in hearing what people disagree with in the article?

Cheers!

[Drew Stephenson]

I didn't read much of the rest of the article but specifically with regard to the noise guide, I've been listening to a few of my regular reference tracks in the background this morning whilst running a spectrum analyser by them and my take is that whilst his flat-to-1kHz-then-down-at-6dB-per-octave seems to correlate with a lot of older music it doesn't seem to fit a lot of more modern productions. Stuff mixed in the last decade or so generally has more bottom end and, particularly with anything vocal led, a lot more energy in the 5-12kHz area.

One thing I did pick up that I agreed with though was that saying 'trust your ears' to a beginner really isn't very helpful. We haven't developed our ears yet, that's why we're asking the question.

Which leads me to my final point that I wouldn't take my advice about any of this stuff.

[James Perrett]

One thing I did pick up that I agreed with though was that saying 'trust your ears' to a beginner really isn't very helpful. We haven't developed our ears yet, that's why we're asking the question.

Which is why the first thing you need to do when learning about recording is to learn to listen. There's no point in trying to mix until you know what a good mix sounds like so you need to listen to lots and lots of recordings. And then analyse the mixes to work out why they sound good. At the same time you'll probably be analysing the arrangements and the playing because a mix is just a small part in creating a good recording.

I've said it before, but one of the best training grounds is to try some DJ'ing. You'll find that some records work with an audience while other, seemingly good records, mysteriously don't - the secret is to try to work out why they don't work.

[Tim Gillett]

I didn't read much of the rest of the article but specifically with regard to the noise guide, I've been listening to a few of my regular reference tracks in the background this morning whilst running a spectrum analyser by them and my take is that whilst his flat-to-1kHz-then-down-at-6dB-per-octave seems to correlate with a lot of older music it doesn't seem to fit a lot of more modern productions. Stuff mixed in the last decade or so generally has more bottom end and, particularly with anything vocal led, a lot more energy in the 5-12kHz area.

That might be partly because older music was released on the then current formats of vinyl and cassette which overloaded easier on the extreme low and high frequencies, hence mastering eng's might hold back somewhat on the low lows and high highs. I first noticed this many years ago and just to confirm made a switched A B comparison between the vinyl and the CD versions of a JT album. The difference wasnt subtle to my ears. I suspect one of the reasons reissues sometimes go back to the multitrack rather than just the mix tape is to extract more of these frequencies that may have been held back in the original mix and/or at the mastering stage.

[Drew Stephenson]

That might be partly because older music was released on the then current formats of vinyl and cassette which overloaded easier on the extreme low and high frequencies, hence mastering eng's might hold back somewhat on the low lows and high highs.

And producers now have the choice depending on whether they're going for a classic / retro feel or something more contemporary.

As Russell Crowe said, "What a fascinating modern age we live in!"

[trunkdog]

The whole of his thesis seems to revolve around the nuances of the yes/no headphone mix debate whilst he goes into great detail on most every aspect of aural perception.

I find the following questionable at best, doubtful most likely and certainly subjective.

… a diagonal line beginning at 0dB at 1kHz and descending downwards at a rate of -6dB/octave as the frequency gets higher.

If we listen to a number of well-engineered recordings while studying how their frequency spectrums compare to the 6dB guide, we’ll notice an interesting trend. Mixes that sound like they have a good balance of energy throughout the frequency spectrum tend to conform to the 6dB guide, as do direct-to-stereo purist recordings of acoustic music that are made with ‘accurate’ microphones

Well… I can at least agree with these statements:

either provide a meaningful answer or STFU. As has been repeated many times by numerous leading figures throughout history, “if your words are not better than silence, then be silent”.

In professional audio parlance this is known as a ‘polished turd’; mixes like this keep a lot of mastering engineers and multi-band compressor manufacturers/developers in business, but are never good references…

Perhaps I should have remained silent
my 2¢…YMMV

[PedroTheThird]

This -6 dB guide is rather useless considering the already mentioned difference between old and modern recordings, genre/styles, individual tracks, headphones used and a few more aspects like how complex (frequency-dependent) loudness perception really is. Example: Sometimes a lowpass or highpass filter can make something sound more clear/defined/loud in the transition band which might be related to a phenomenon called lateral inhibition - your ears hear more than what you can see on the screen. Another example would be auditory masking which makes something sound quiter than what your spectrum analyzer shows. Or what about crest factor and impulsivity? And then there is the question what type of spectrum analyzer you're using in the first place because FFT- and bandpass-based types can give you very different results - this was the first thing that popped up in my mind. Conclusion: It's complicated.