Full Mix Volume: Why does Pro stuff sound better at low levels than non pro stuff?

Strange question I guess but I am noticing something...
 
If I listen to a full commercially produce mix at low volume it generally sounds the same as the volume increases (just louder). But with a lot of the stuff I hear posted here, my own stuff or stuff that others I'm working with send me it's like the mix changes at different volume levels.
 
I'm assuming this has something to do with mastering or really top quality mixing.
 
So again this is going to be a typical Beepster drive by query (because I've got a lot of little experiments and projects on the go) but I'm wondering if there is some definitive, logical reason for this or if I'm just kind of crazy.
 
I know the premise that "volume" = "better" to the human ear but that does not explain why I can listen to my favorite commercially produced albums at low volumes and I can hear everything (and if I turn it up it doesn't sound "better" just louder) but when listening to demos the volume seems to have a distinct impact on the mix.
 
In fact sometimes things sound BETTER at the lower volume and worse at louder volumes.
 
Does this make sense? Is this an actual thing? If so what are some concepts I need to study to make things consistent at various levels.
 
Talkign full mixes here. Not individual tracks.
 
Cheers and looking forward to what folks have to say on this matter.
 
;-)

First, listen on various systems.  I always take my own stuff in the car and play a cd (not mp3).  I know the flaws in my jeeps sound system so I can see how well it works.  And since my music computer ain't usually connected to the internet, I sneaker walk it to a computer that is and listen on those computer speakers.  I also have a typical bookshelf speaker system in the front of the house.  I'll listen to the CD on that, too, which gives a  whole lot of variety of speaker size and quality and rooms.  Want to know if your vocal is too loud or soft.  Put a cd on in the living room and go into the kitchen.  You'll quickly know if it ain't loud enough.  I also play my songs in a pro studio w/ Barefoots.  Nothing like hearing your homebrew on a full-range system in a tuned room.  Not everyone has that opportunity but a listen on full-range (8-inch or so woofers) system is needed to check the bass.  All those systems together provide a median of how a song sounds - I'll do a lot of work from my car speakers template and the computers.  The last acoustic sound I listened on these speakers I trimmed a bit of low end out of the vocal reverb since it was blooming a bit.  Sounded good in the mains and a lot of the bloom disappeared.
 
Most of my eq'ing is filtering. Most of the actual energy in a sound wave is in the lower register.  Cutting down on stuff below 100 Hz on many acoustic tracks not only cleans out the mud but also gets rid of the wasted energy on that track.  Every time you bump up the volume, most of what you are doing on a lot of unfiltered tracks is raising the practically unheard vol of the low noise and rumble instead of the meat of the instrument.  On higher-pitched stuff you can take even more of the useless bass (reminds me of a player) out.  It helps on one or two tracks, but if you are doing multi-tracked songs it can make a lot of difference.  Even if you don't really hear the noise it is there and using up precious energy.  Your sound is more focused.
 
Nobody likes to hear this but experience is the main thing.  Take the vocal reverb bass in the above example.  The obvious thing to do was just chop the vocal, but it was already filtered up to almost 200 Hz.  I knew that wasn't the problem so it had to be the reverb.  There are a million other factoids like that one has to know and account for.  The only way to know them is to have experienced them.  You never learn anything by doing it right, only by messing up.  When you do you, you begin to understand why doing things by the book seems to work.  But if you stick to the book you'll never make the art form an art, but a simple a repetitive craft. 
 
So, as Nike sez, just do it.  You'll make mistakes, but you'll get better.  And your low-level listening will get closer to sounding like your loud levels.
 
@

short answer = pro mastering.
 
they actually know what they're doing.

As Jim sez above, there is the fletcher-Munson curve.  So the other thing you'll notice in many pro studios is the vol level itself.  It is not excessive, nor even loud.  Sessions will get checked out loud, but not used exclusively.  At more than one studio the mains aren't even the primary speakers, but the nearfields.  All that provides a more real-world listening environment. 
 
So far I haven't seen any ear buds, but no doubt there should be a software company making an app for that. ;-)

dupe

I came across this a while back:
 
http://sonarworks.com/
 
I purchased the Headphone version recently. They model several widely used headphones and use some really precise EQ (something like 1000 or 2000 points) which is used to emulate several different listening environments all within your DAW. I have to say, it has made a difference for me. It has allowed me to get to know my setup. I use it in conjunction with Magic AB and I'm already adapting much better to my environment. Apparently the Speaker version is also pretty good.
 
Here is a review by MusicRadar, they also have some pretty nice things to say about it, so you don't have to take it from me:

http://www.musicradar.com/reviews/tech/sonarworks-reference-3-624375
 

It gets back to what I have been saying too about listening to your mixes on a very small mono speaker at low volume.  It is just amazing to say the least.  I see Auratone are re releasing their original speakers.
 
It shows up what I call the critcal mix.  The actual balance between everything in your mix.  Often when you have everything sounding great in your main speakers when you go onto the little speaker in mono down soft all the problems show up.  Snare hits jump out like mad, vocals will usually be too loud, bass parts too loud, guitars too loud you name it.
 
Once you get everything sweet in the little speaker when you go back up onto the mains what often happens there is not much has changed other than your mix will sound a little nicer.  Except now you have satisfied both the main speakers AND the little speaker.
 
Turning your main speakers down low is good for sure but I still prefer summing the stereo mix into mono and into one small speaker. (with restricted bass and high end too of course)  I have just mastered a real nice album too and the little speaker in mono revealed a few things too I needed to change slightly.  It is good for a lot of things.  A lot of the great engineers do it.

with my nearfield JBL's, which are matched to the size of my small tracking room;
with my ARC2 setup, which easily lets me fold down to MONO;
with wavelab, which is setup with Waves Plugs, including a nice phase meter;
and dual volume presets on my sound card (low volume mixdown, Full volume mixdown),
i can check against fletcher munson, phase, balance, all the things that you have to do to get that mix to happen properly loud and soft....
 
 
but even without all that,
i can say that LISTENING, to as much pro material as you can,
out of your monitors, in your room,
will help train your ears to how things should translate....
and listening low volume, and at mixing volume, and comparing those two situations against your own mixes,
is time well spent

So I don't think after a long day of really going nuts on some other stuff I'll be unable to really dig into some of the topics presented here and reply articulately.
 
I am realizing now that I have indeed come across the Fletcher/Munson thing before and actually used it but it was presented as a straight (but diagonal) line. Not all wiggety wack like in that article. So I've got some followups on that.
 
As well, I am now starting to scheme out how I can mimic the "Mono Aurotone" effect with the gear I currently have. I have some ideas on how to fake it and I have indeed intended on bouncing back and forth between mono and stereo (or starting out in mono then only near the end going to stereo... or any number of crazy ideas).
 
But as I said... brain burn.
 
It may seem like I am always asking the same questions here and maybe not absorbing stuff but I have definitely been trying to pay attention and in my sloooow uptake way understanding it.
 
Just want to let you guys know all this help is appreciated and slowly getting put to use around the Beeps household.
 
I'll let all this simmer as I sleep and respond properly (hopefully) in the morning. I am about to undertake a huge mix as a learning exercise and I want to use some of these concepts (as well as the mountains of other stuff I've picked up around here and elsewhere over the past couple years).
 
Ya'll rock.
 
;-)

I'd say any stuff with wide dynamics requires either enough volume or loudness boost to sound full.
So, maybe the pro stuff you mean is compressed better/more than the reference material?
When I listen to, say, old Jethro Tull CDs, I very clearly notice how I have to raise volume to make them sound full.
They have very wide dynamics which can be seen in the waveforms as well.
 
What is "loud enough"  or "quiet" is the question, then.
 

Damn... this is just brilliant stuff.
 
Just when I think I have sorted out all the general variables involved in manipulating sound (not being good at manipulating it all... just knowing the various factors to pay attention to) something new pops onto my radar.
 
This all makes perfect sense and I am glad I asked. I do have a lot of thoughts and followups but they are still rather scattered and evolving as you guys explain stuff. Really I think I would only derail an awesome thread by rambling on in my usual style at this point.
 
Definitely like how Tull got brought up and the introduction of compression (or lack thereof) affecting things at different volume levels. Gonna have to really put my thinking bone on this and study but just the comments here are helping it sink in.
 
Cheeers!

Okay, so I'm going to drop some insane questions based on some of the subjects brought up here... specifically "mono" mixing/eqing and the "Aurotone" concept, BUT in relation to a nasty dum dum headphone mixing freak (who can only occasionally switch to actual monitors).
 
I am working on a MASSIVE mix right now with tons of guitars. I have been constantly smacking the Interleave button on my Premaster bus (which essentially acts as my Master... nothing goes onto the real Master until the end).
 
I am attempting to make everything sound good in mono as well as stereo but with this level of tracks (track count currently at 50+ and will likely end up being up to 70-80 or more) and the nature of the material (lots of double guitas, vox with harmonies, psycho drums, orchestral synths, etc) this is of course a massive challenge for a newb.
 
So I'm just trying to make sure things are EQd so at least everything can be heard reasonably clearly in mono (like nothing disappears completley when I hit the interleave button on the Premaster).
 
That's all just a set up for my real question(s).
 
Since I am forced to do most of this stuff in headphones (yes I know that sucks but it is the reality) what, if any, differences occur in that situation compared to listening to a single speaker being fed mono?
 
eg: I hit the interleave button on the main output and listen through headphones vs. a single speaker in the room.
 
In both scenarios I am getting a mono signal blasted at BOTH my ears but in one scenario it is being delivered directly into each ear by two different speakers (in the headphones which is kind of a stereo I guess due to the differences in how good each ear is and maybe discrepancies in the can speakers) and in the other it flies through the air from a single cone.
 
What are the implications here? Can I reasonably consider "mono" from a set of headphones relatively equivelant to mono from a single speaker?
 
 
and a second question...
 
This talk about the Aurotone speaker setup has me contemplating my own gear and how I could emulate that with my Mackie MRKII monitors (which are obviously not Aurotones... they have a 5"" woofer and a little tweeter about 1/5" I guess).
 
So my thought was that I could, within Sonar set it up so that the mono signal (from the master or main outs) is all being directed through one of the monitors and since I have them currently set up for a "stereo" nearfield experience (so on either side of my stoopid face) I can just reposition MYSELF physically in front of that single speaker to see what my mono output might be like flying through the air.
 
For THAT train of thought I would ask... is that insane/totally not going to even remotely serve the purpose of given me a kind of mono Aurotone style experience (of course I don't expect it to respond like an actual Aurotone) or is it a low rent/half ass kind of almost good idea for ghetto arse mono referencing?
 
 
To take this in a totally OTHER weird direction and kind of combining the two concepts AND maybe getting a bit of Aurotone style goodness...
 
I own a Focusrite VRM Box. I have not had much opportunity to play with it as of yet but am about to give it a good workout (as well as a bunch of other crazy stuff I've been reading about).
 
The VRM Box has an Aurotone emulation on it (that can be placed in I think two of the virtual environments). So summing down to mono (so the VRM recieves/outputs a mono signal.... hopefully) and then having that go through headphones how absolutely sh*te is that experience going to be as far as a mono dump.
 
I am having a hard time expressing my concerns/questions about that one BUT it's an emulation or a classic mono source getting pumped through headphones (I'm not dumb enough to think running it through my monitor(s) will be beneficial in any way) so that goes RIGHT back to the question about the difference between mono signals coming from a single speaker, through the air vs. a mono singnal being pumped through two independent speakers on headphones directly into the listeners ears.
 
 
I hope that all made sense and isn't too idiotic. I just find this kind of fascinating and of course I am always trying to not just "learn" crap but actually "understand" it so I can bend, break and even make up rules as I go when needed.
 
Cheers, as always you guys rock.
 
:-D

bitflipper
.... because one crummy speaker will not be crummy in exactly the same way as another crummy speaker. All they have in common may be just general crumminess.

Nothing like starting the day with a good chuckle... Great post bit...

Good advice.
 
Yes, I try to mix my tunes at a  low volume and get it sounding good at the lower volume, that way, turning it up will sound good. And most of the time, it does.

I don't need to rehash what's already been said.... Lots of good commentary up above.