I would add that compression is the sound of modern music. Learn it use it. Everything you hear in commercial music is compressed extensively. A lot of times it's not the fact that compression is required but that it provides competitive sonics. Whether you use transparent sounding compression, gritty sounding compression or slammed sounding compression. Learn the sonic characteristics of the following and when and where to use them.

CL1B
LA2A
1176 - various versions
API 2500
SSL both channel and buss versions (E&G EQ curves)
Neve 33609
Distressor

And also in the compression vein:

L1, L2 limiters

These all have their own sonic characteristic and there are others which you should understand. For this a UAD2 card and associated plugins are an invaluable learning tool. In summary, once you understand when to use these and the characteristic they impart on the sound. You are moving closer to getting commercial results in modern music. For classical and jazz less so.

Dynamic range:
i guess i'm currently sitting squarely between the classic rock levels of compression and limiting, and modern.
i'm using a wideband compressor across the 2-buss , and kissing levels consistenly, but at a very low ratio (1:1.5).
so everything gets touched by the overall compression settings, at the master buss.


but at the track level, i'm doing ANYTHING i have to do, to get the track to do what i want.

if that means leaving it alone, fine.... if it means crushing it with a limiter, so be it.


so, i'm mixing into a master buss compressor.
and i know exactly how putting an already compressed bass track into THAT compressor, is going to react.
it lets me use lighter compression settings, generally, at the track level, knowing that there is a secondary compressor also involved in the process.


---but if i mix at only low volume, i get a completely different feel for the mix, than if i mix at -85db (which happens to be the level i prefer when checking mixes at what i refer to as 'full volume'.) 
you've got to do both.

low volume mixing (anything below 77db is, for me, 'low volume' mixing) and full range mixing (the idea of -83 being the optimum level, is a combination of human ear, typical monitor frequency range, and how music at that volume interacts with a typical room. )




that all said, i notice that if i check mixes at real low volume, like conversation level volume, i can often spot if vocals are too loud.

or if anything else really pokes out.



another issue...
I often read about the perils of mixing with a limiter across the 2-buss.

the idea is, that a lot of people will get their mixes cranked up to almost commercial levels, using a L2 or the like across the master buss, and then send THAT of to a mastering engineer.

that is not a good thing to do.......


but i often DO MIX INTO A LIMITER.

i don't use it for level, at all.

even with my limiter across the 2-buss, my peak levels will not change.

but, i can hear the difference in the way the mix comes together.
the idea is, to trust your ears, NOT THE METERS.


put a limiter across the 2-buss, and take the levels up to 0 on threshold and out ceiling.
bring the 'out ceiling' down to about the level where your peaks on the master are occurring.
now, bring the threshold down until you can just barely hear it working.


now, take the 'out ceiling' back up to about -0.3.
you wont even see the reduction meter on the limiter moving, but you'll hear it.
trust your ears.

One of the main goals of the K system is to be very accurate with your metering and that is why standard DAW meters (except Studio One of course) will not give you the accuracy down low on their scales compared to reading something that is approaching 0 dB VU on a VU meter scale.

It is absurd to think the meter becomes less of an issue and you can just feel the right levels in the room. That is rubbish. You could be out by 1 or 2 db and not hear it that much overall level wise and you certainly won't see it on a DAW meter that is down at -17 dB. (or -23 db) Also if your room level is out by a dB or two the error will compound. BTW I have a permanent SPL meter in my room all the time. Very revealing actually.

Katz talks about the meter very seriously in his info. He used a very expensive Dorrough meter to do the level calibration and also to keep check on exact levels. Metering is vital and very important otherwise your K levels get out of whack. It is the single most important aspect of it.

I am not referring to mastered levels or anything like that either. K system refers to unmastered levels at all times. However when mastering I shift the K ref from the ref I was working at to commercial ref levels instead eg K -11, K -8 or even K-7. I noticed a Steely Dan CD was mastered the other day to K-11. Good combination of volume and transients. Many albums are much louder than that. K system also allows you to measure and accurately track commercial mastered levels too. (something many here keep saying they want to do) But you also need the meter to do it as well. Even more reason why the meter is vital, important and critical. Without it you are actually working in the dark.

Many people do not have any concept of the VU meter because they were not producing so much music in a time when that was all there was. The modern DAW has simply dropped it and gone over to mainly peak reading devices. You really need BOTH! Many around here have not even seen or used a real VU meter either. But once you do you will never go back. It also suits the K system of metering very well. It is interesting that it is still present in all major recording and mastering facilities. The single main reason why people screw up their track and buss levels is because they don't know how to meter correctly and they don't have a VU meter to help them.

Also any advice about only trusting your ears and not trusting a meter is also rubbish. In fact a quality VU meter can tell you heaps about a mix. The ballistics of the meter can actually inform you amazing amounts of info about your mix. It is intersting to watch very well mixed material compared to your own on a VU meter. They move quite differently in fact. (if your mix is poor that is) Even if the levels are right. I have noticed as your mix gets better the VU starts to move in very similar way to a great mix. It does take some practice to learn to read and interpret a VU meter response. Something many here won't bother to do. (This is where real VU's come into their own as well) Also if a VU is swinging wildly but you cannot hear why, it makes you look into the tracks and find the offending track. And often it is a track with subsonic rubbish on it that is not useful anyway. Unless your monitors go right down there you wont ever hear it either and it will get through.

With lower volume monitoring levels I go all the way and use a single mono speaker with L+R being fed into it and I monitor that at a very low level (65 dB or less) That is a real eye opener in terms of your mix and vocal level setting. So for me the 85 dB SPL C weighting sounds Ok but it may have been all those years I played in very loud bands that makes it so. LOL! Do remember though that the ears best response to music is NOT at 77dB or where most of you are monitoring, it is actually in fact around 83-85 dB so there is good reason to work at that level. It won't kill you! I have said this before, your mixes and mastering will sound its best if you do work at that level. I think if you are going to monitor lower than that then you need to come up there for checking your mixes at least. I go much higher for loud mix checking. eg 95 dB sounds pretty cool and so does 105 dB but obviously only for short periods. You really need to check your mixes at many levels. You are doing yourself  a disservice if you don't.

The only thing I would disagree with Jeff is mixing at 83 to 85. That's just too loud for hours of work for me, it just fries my ears. But yes, that is the flattest part of the scale, no questions there. Also there is definitely a check at louder volumes after the details are done.

Download this pdf, from the ATSC (Advanced Television Systems Committee), entitled "Recommended Practice: Techniques for Establishing and Maintaining Audio Loudness for Digital Television". 

Chapter 10 describes setting up and calibrating different types of mixing rooms. It notes that loudness is dependent on the size of the room: identical SPLs sound louder in a small room than a large room. 

Their recommended calibration procedure specifies 76db as the target for rooms under 1500 cubic feet (this would describe most bedroom studios), 78db for rooms under 5000 cubic feet, 80db under 10,000 cu. ft. and 85db only for rooms over 20,000 cu. ft. in size.

Great article Dave. I am happy to admit then that the room size does effect perceived loudness and it certainly explains why my recommended monitoring levels are pretty OK. The thing that I have not taken into account is the size of my main studio and control. (they are both the same room) is quite big. My room is approx 4440 cubic feet which is larger than normal for sure and that puts me in the 80 dB SPL level which is not far off the 83 dB SPL- to 85 dB that I prefer. I don't always monitor at 85 db SPL either as often the music hovers around 80 dB SPL for me as well. Even when it peaks at 85dB it is also around 80 dB a lot of the time too. I love having a permanent SPL meter in the room. It is very helpful and keeps you honest. Without it you find yourself turning up your monitor level over time if you are working on something for day for example.

It is great to have those waveforms for download as well. I still think that the C weighting for any SPL measurements is the correct weighting. Of course band limited pink noise will give the same result for either A or C weighting but for any source material that is going below 500 Hz, C weighting is definitely the correct setting to use. I think it is important to use full range pink noise as well because it can tell you a lot about your low end in your monitoring position as well. Fortunately for me I get the same SPL levels with either.

When I settled on 76db it wasn't because of any scientific justification or expert recommendations. It simply felt right. Loud enough to sound full but not tiring.

That's how I ended up with my level. When I originally set up for K-Metering I thought it was too loud but I tried to stick with it. I found myself constantly turning it down for the majority of my work and then going back up to the "K" level for... some stupid sense of "that's how it should be done." I then had the lightbulb moment of gee, if K-System is about consistent SPL-to-meter levels and I keep returning my levels to the same consistent one (which I verified was very consistent) then maybe that should be my reference level. And it became so. (and incidentally my room is about 4620 cu ft.)

Thanks for the document bitflipper. I have a small room and 76 is good for me too. 

Could I just check something with you guys here...excellent discussion and fantastic advice all round.....but using the K system means you should be averaging round the "o" point but it is OK to go over? For example, using the K-14 setup, if your track averaged out at the "0" but occasionally went into the +4 or +8, would that be OK?