Hi lqdsnddist:
Respect you -- and you know what you are are talking about technically. However, going to very respectfully disagree with making presets at less than 92db average loudness. Hear my reason/purpose before reacting: because many people are going to read your advice, then program presets at less than needed loudness, go on stage, turn it up... and then realize/say it doesn't sound right (too bass, to much top, not enough mids, etc etc.).
If they do the presets it at average of 92db (or amore) then they won't have that problem.
What we should both want to avoid is the majority of guitar players mixing at conversation levels in their apartment/bedroom and then complaining when they go play live and turn up saying "it doesn't sound right... it sounded better in my apartment/bedroom."
There is a reason that many Db meters scales will change color precisely at 92db...that is precisely when it gets technically "loud." Loud enough be heard over drums for example on stage.
For reference, Hollywood film composers also use minimum 92 db for mixing reference for move theater playback. I just am posting this ot save someone the headache of finding it out the hard way.
And -- I don't doubt for a minute that a professional mixer, or someone like yourself with years of doing this stuff, can create a great preset dial ed in at less than 92db volume, if you have years of experience and practice knowing how things "scale up" when turned up louder -- but that is not most of we forumites.
Cheers!
Certainly respect you as well, and as such, I have to respectfully disagree with your respectful disagreement lol. First and foremost, I think it needs to be made clear that you are actually the real expert in terms of crafting patches. You know your way inside and out of the Axe like few others, and more so than that, you know what sounds good and musical. My area of expertise is in the field of human auditory perception. Ironic really because I spent a better half of my life making things as loud as possible, be it my cars exhaust or sound systems, rocking a 2203 half stack in my bedroom as a teenager, and basically trying to subject anyone who foolishly came to hear me perform music to as loud of sonic assault as I could muster.... yet here I am today trying to actually help people preserve their hearing/hear better.
That all said, the reason the dB scales change past 90 dB isn't because its where it sounds good, its actually where the level is determined to be unsafe, based upon standard ANSI, American Acoustical Society of Amerida and OSHA standards for noise exposure. NIOSH actually recommends 85 dB for what its worth. Essentially what this is saying is that if an employee receives that noise exposure over the duration of a shift, that employee must be provided with hearing protection. An employer can either reduce the noise of the machine, which is expensive, or they can provide (and ensure compliance) with hearing protection, which is far cheaper. You wouldn't want to sit around breathing air with unsafe levels of carbon monoxide right ? Yet many people willing subject themselves to unsafe levels of noise exposure in recreational/hobby settings, even enjoying it to an extent, like "Oh man, that Motorhead concert was intense, my ears rang for 2 days afterwards, best show ever!", Motorhead is great live (RIP Lemmy) but that ringing is permanent damage to the auditory system, and that auditory system is pretty important to us as musicians.
That all said, you need to remember to take the frequency content of audibility curves into account. The minimum intensity level of 100 Hz is going to be a lot less than 50 Hz. 4000 Hz is going to be a lot less than 10,000 Hz etc. I don't really know much about mastering for film scores, BUT, I'm assuming because there is so much sub-bass in theatrical mixes, they may want/need to mix at a louder level to better perceive what is going on down in the 30-40 Hz range.
Look at this audibility curve with regards to the typical guitar frequency range. I don't know about everyone, but I usually high and low cut my presets around 100 Hz - 6000 Hz. By 80 dB we've got an essentially flat audibility curve within the range of guitar. Yes, if your doing Moog sub bass lines at 30 Hz you probably don't want to make a mix decision at 40dB "late night" volume because your not hearing it accurately. BUT, most probably don't have a very linear monitor system anyways. I know my Presonus monitors are only accurate to 10dB past about 60 Hz, while they are 3 dB above that, but playback systems are another thread all together, as is the fact these curves all assume "normal" hearing. They are just averages really, and an individuals curve can look a bit different, especially if one has a history of lots of loud music.
In simplest terms I often tell people to think of things like..... Think of a favorite song. GnR "Welcome to the Jungle" is the first thing that pops into my head.... We've all heard the track I'm sure...
Think about listening to that song played fairly soft, like in your room late a night. Then think about hearing it in the car, and think about hearing it played really loud at a club, or over the house PA during a set change etc.
Does it sound that different ? Does it sound like some weird cover band when you hear it about 90dB verses listening to it at 40dB at home ? Do you hear totally different parts and instruments sounds in the mix ??
No. Because the audibility curve for 40 dB is basically the same as 90 dB within the range of 500-5000 Hz!
Our auditory is pretty linear within the range of most instruments. It does make a difference with the more extreme highs and lows, yes, but its not nearly as significant as its gotten blown out of proportion to be on internet forums.
Fletcher and Munson, "FM" deserve credit for being among the first to publish on audibility curves, BUT, that was nearly 100 years ago. Audibility curves have been revised many times since then, but the name sticks around. A lot of people have a vague idea of what "FM" is, but they don't really understand the full implementation or never have looked at the actual curves.
One is free to create patches at 92 dB, or 87 dB, or 70 dB. It really isn't going to matter that much. I personally get ear fatigue after an hour or two at 80 dB, I run my monitors a bit softer typically, for better or worse. They translate fine. Again, don't try to dial in a preset at 30 dB on an "A" tuned guitar and then play it at 105 dB and expect it to sound the same, but likewise, don't feel if your not listening at an exact 92 dB your patches will be inaccurate.
In all honesty, playback monitors and listening position are going to have as much impact on perception as "FM" is, if not more.
If someone has a monitor that drops 10 dB when its 60 degrees off axis, and they are creating their patch standing at their pedal board, and not in their monitors "sweet spot" they have a relatively significant issue in not hearing an accurate frequency response.
Its cool that people are getting interested in this stuff though. I remember in psycho-acoustics classes none of my classmates were ever excited about this stuff, while I was like "awesome, we got assigned a lab project determined audibility curves for our classmates!" lol.
