"This" particular system is to force us to use a made up metering declared by dynamics that can never be reached by modern music.
The K-System Metering is actually what I'd prefer, too. Master in K-14, barely use the amber zone (if ever), go no higher than K-12 (if the amber zone is used) so that it's -0,5dB RMS with K-12) and be gone with it. Same effect, less effort, no need to adjust ANYTHING in the end since the peak can still hit -0,3dBFS (while with other techniques and with K-20 it does not).
But... it seems like these people from the foundation constitute a quorum that we engineers have to stick to starting summer 2010, to do what they want.
Geez, I do support the K-System, I do support the idea of having dynamic recordings again. But throwing the K-System overboard and installing a "Dynamic Range" system and say "no less than 14dB of dynamic, else the peak has to be adjusted down so that the loudness with smaller dynamic is still the same as DR14" is just nonsense if you ask me - and doesn't work either (perceived volume changes!).
According to "this particular system", all my productions in the last 3 years are all crap and need to be adjusted again? Come on, why did I even adapt Bob Katz's K-System in the first place anyway?
I will see what I get as response to my email. But as of this moment, people jump on the bandwagon because they think it is good to end the loudness race, but it's always in the small prints.
K-Meters are now "Dynamic Range Meters"?
-
- KVRAF
- Topic Starter
- 14740 posts since 19 Oct, 2003 from Berlin, Germany
-
- KVRAF
- 2844 posts since 1 Jan, 2003
Reading through all of this made me want to squash things, just for the hell of it- paper cups, bugs, a piece of pie. I think I'll download the artwork and label everything I do DR0 from now on.
-
- KVRAF
- 3441 posts since 15 Mar, 2003
To me it isn't about loudness or dynamic range.
It's about the distortion that is caused by over-commpression.
Calling it loudness makes one sound like an old fart and people miss the point.
Dynamic range is an artistic consideration. Some may want a lot and some may not want any. It depends on the music.
The problem is when everything, whether pop or rock or metal or folk or jazz or whatever gets compressed to the point of distortion just for the sake of loudness.
It's about the distortion that is caused by over-commpression.
Calling it loudness makes one sound like an old fart and people miss the point.
Dynamic range is an artistic consideration. Some may want a lot and some may not want any. It depends on the music.
The problem is when everything, whether pop or rock or metal or folk or jazz or whatever gets compressed to the point of distortion just for the sake of loudness.
-
- KVRAF
- Topic Starter
- 14740 posts since 19 Oct, 2003 from Berlin, Germany
The thing is with this standard here, that the subjectiveness on loudness of a track is declared by somebody else from now on. We (both users and engineers alike) have to adapt and need to stick with it (the thing with changing the peak headroom after the mastering stage for example).
Rock has to be squashed and highain (guitars), we're not in the 70ies after all. Electronic needs to pump the floor, we're not in the 90ies anymore either. Pop has a certain ring to it with the arrangement as of late, with turned back down vocals compared to productions in the 60ies, etc. It's a genre thing, music evolved over the years. In which direction is a different topic, also why it went louder and louder and louder. But even if it's "full dynamic", it still has and needs to stick to a certain sound.
There are many aspects that go out of hand. I accept the fact that they want to change things for the better, no doubt about that. But with a gun pointed at your head, it's definitely not working. And seeing as they want to pull that through until July 2010...
*shakes head*
@Cordelia:
I feel the same, only that I additionally want a shirt with the logo and "my brain is in DR-0" written under it.
Rock has to be squashed and highain (guitars), we're not in the 70ies after all. Electronic needs to pump the floor, we're not in the 90ies anymore either. Pop has a certain ring to it with the arrangement as of late, with turned back down vocals compared to productions in the 60ies, etc. It's a genre thing, music evolved over the years. In which direction is a different topic, also why it went louder and louder and louder. But even if it's "full dynamic", it still has and needs to stick to a certain sound.
There are many aspects that go out of hand. I accept the fact that they want to change things for the better, no doubt about that. But with a gun pointed at your head, it's definitely not working. And seeing as they want to pull that through until July 2010...
*shakes head*
@Cordelia:
I feel the same, only that I additionally want a shirt with the logo and "my brain is in DR-0" written under it.
-
tony tony chopper tony tony chopper https://www.kvraudio.com/forum/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=3103
- KVRAF
- 3561 posts since 20 Jun, 2002
What wheel has been invented exactly? Isn't the K-system just a name for a meter with an offset? I never understood how it was an invention. Who said meters were measuring something absolute, anyway?Why reinvent the wheel again
I mean, someone comes and says: ok guys, here's my invention. Take your meter, you see where it says 0dB? Well, with my invention, named K-12, I rename that label 12dB. Brilliant.
(but maybe I'm missing something here)
DOLPH WILL PWNZ0R J00r LAWZ!!!!
-
- KVRAF
- 1655 posts since 3 Mar, 2009 from Colorado Springs
I'm going to go on ignoring this and just do what I want, but then I'm not exactly making hit records either.
-
- KVRAF
- Topic Starter
- 14740 posts since 19 Oct, 2003 from Berlin, Germany
WEll to me the K-System was kind of a revolution: you got a guideline how to setup your speakers, you got 3 simple to understand standards in this system - done.
With the "Dynamic Range Meters" it's a bit different. You can say that it's based upon the K-System (setting up your speakers, etc), but it's also adding another twist to it and actually declares that you have to have a certain dynamic range, else your tracks are out of the standard of the... er... standard?
And even if you're still in the DR meter standard, but the standard is considered too loud (in this case DR8), it's getting back adjusted down in terms of the loudness (done by reducing the gain, and therefore the maximum peak headroom is shifted, too).
I'm not saying that this is bad per se, I'm saying it is flawed. And that flaw is planned to be pushed through by Summer 2010.
I still need to do some tests, I'm also still curious about what Mr Katz has to say (he didn't sign up yet, but supports at least the "initial idea"). But so far - I'm not impressed. And even though the "new word is spread" by discussing this topic, I also try to reflect a different aspect of this particular measuring system in the process.
Also I've yet to get a response to my mail to the foundation... I'll keep you updated on that.
With the "Dynamic Range Meters" it's a bit different. You can say that it's based upon the K-System (setting up your speakers, etc), but it's also adding another twist to it and actually declares that you have to have a certain dynamic range, else your tracks are out of the standard of the... er... standard?
And even if you're still in the DR meter standard, but the standard is considered too loud (in this case DR8), it's getting back adjusted down in terms of the loudness (done by reducing the gain, and therefore the maximum peak headroom is shifted, too).
I'm not saying that this is bad per se, I'm saying it is flawed. And that flaw is planned to be pushed through by Summer 2010.
I still need to do some tests, I'm also still curious about what Mr Katz has to say (he didn't sign up yet, but supports at least the "initial idea"). But so far - I'm not impressed. And even though the "new word is spread" by discussing this topic, I also try to reflect a different aspect of this particular measuring system in the process.
Also I've yet to get a response to my mail to the foundation... I'll keep you updated on that.
-
- KVRAF
- 2049 posts since 18 Sep, 2003 from Seattle USA
From the press release...
For example if I finalize a rock track to DR4 it's going to sound a heck of a lot different than if Bob Ludwig makes it DR4 at his studio since we use very different equipment. I think this issue has already been mentioned in this thread.
Secondly I have several recent commercial CD releases with overshoots, this certainly affects the listening experience on my CD players, now I also need a dbFS 'overs' scale to alert me to this dynamic range issue. If you're going to mark dynamic quality on the CD might as well track overs I suppose, it sounds like hell.
Nice idea, it's not clear to me how stating dynamic range for a work will ensure 'dynamic quality'.TT Dynamic Range Meter makes it possible to provide releases with a whole-number dynamic value to be printed on the recording medium as a logo, giving consumers an immediate means of knowing the dynamic quality of a recording.
An online database is planned for furnishing information on music already released with the standard. In this way, conditions have been met for the creation of a single standard for audio recorded media - a step which was taken by the film industry over thirty years ago. Music with small dynamic range has a low value, for example DR4 (Dynamic Range = 4dB). Music with a large dynamic range has a higher DR value, for example DR14 or more. In this case, music can breathe and loud events are actually louder.
For example if I finalize a rock track to DR4 it's going to sound a heck of a lot different than if Bob Ludwig makes it DR4 at his studio since we use very different equipment. I think this issue has already been mentioned in this thread.
Secondly I have several recent commercial CD releases with overshoots, this certainly affects the listening experience on my CD players, now I also need a dbFS 'overs' scale to alert me to this dynamic range issue. If you're going to mark dynamic quality on the CD might as well track overs I suppose, it sounds like hell.
-
tony tony chopper tony tony chopper https://www.kvraudio.com/forum/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=3103
- KVRAF
- 3561 posts since 20 Jun, 2002
But this sounds more like "we follow a guru" rather than "we support someone's invention".WEll to me the K-System was a revolution: you got a guideline how to setup your speakers, you got 3 simple to understand standards in this system - done.
Problem: it's not audio engineers who need a guru, but listeners. Loudness war isn't about enginneers doing a dick size competition, it's about listeners being dumb enough to prefer the next song because it sounds louder than yours. What will this system change to that? Until everyone adopts it (& that won't happen), your song will still be the quieter of the bunch.
Here's something that can at least be done:
We'll assume that most people are listening to music digitally, as mp3's (sad or not, but true).
There's at least one (or more?) mp3 tags ('Relative volume adjustment'?) to apply a gain. Imagine most players out there supporting this, they would by default output music at, say -6dB or -12dB, unless such a tag is present.
So on your side, you'd produce mp3's with a volume adjustment of +12dB, the player would play it this time with a 0dB gain (-12+12), you'd get yourself a 12dB headroom compared to other, compressed tracks, you will then need less compression.
While this is still unrealistic (no one will probably ever agree on even little things like this), it's still more realistic than expecting to educate listeners.
Another problem is that engineers won't behave, they will add the +12dB tag, and still compress, but this time it won't just sound louder, it will also damage the listener's ears who will get a sudden +12dB compressed noise in his ears - don't forget that the ceiling also acts as a protection.
So to be safe it could be a lower +6dB headroom, with soft-saturation involved maybe.
Another much more realistic solution: all players coming with a limiter/expander (very long release, simple auto-gain), but instead of being based on peak or RMS as usual, it'd need to be based on a good, reliable perceived loudness metering (if one even exists - this would be the 'invention').
Autogains already help a lot, especially for movies, but they really need to be based on better metering.
DOLPH WILL PWNZ0R J00r LAWZ!!!!
-
- KVRAF
- Topic Starter
- 14740 posts since 19 Oct, 2003 from Berlin, Germany
Autogain is a definite horrow for both movies and music alike. Last time I was watching Battlestar with Autogain on, I was like "shit what are they saying" righter after an explosion or some background noise going out of hand.
This system is flawed on all hands. Yes, even the K-System. But in this case, we at least don't need to care if a track is in DR14 if the track is totally in the K-14 Standard (with proper used amber zone). But aparently, it isn't.
I just did two other tests:
One being a production I'm working on from a German musician based mostly on drums, insane bass and crazy psychedelic guitar stuff. With the old render, I could get as good as DR13, but here the meters on the K-System were already constantly in the amber zone, and the peak barely reached 0dBFS.
Since this was an old rough mix, I'm sure I can do a bit better with the in-depth mixing, but chances are that I will loose out on dynamic thanks due to the heavy distorted guitars and the bass.
Another track I checked was from the Crystal Methos "Double Down Under" Remix contest. I only had a rough mix from the stems that I quickly made for KVR, no FX, nothing. The bass was massively distorted (a synth) but overall the track was fairly leveled out. Problem here: I could only get around DR6 to DR8, even though I was on K-14 and the loudest peak didn't reach -3dBFS.
You see the problem there? It's depending on the material you get. And no matter how much you turn up the upper harmonics, you only hurt your ears rather than getting a suitable and in this case "required dynamic.
And this is where all the troubles start. The loudness is "still" the same if you use both the K-System and the DR-System accordingly (aka: K-12 without amber zone and keeping an eye on the dynamic range), but the dynamic is not.
So chances are that you have a totally dynamic mixed and metered album (K-14) but in DR it is like DR9. Now according to the specifications/the plan of the developers of this standard, the volume has to be adjusted, so that the loudness of the DR9 album resembles the one of a DR14 album, even though they ARE already at the same loudness levels (in this case, K-14).
This is nonsense if you ask me. Proper engineered and mastered tracks will then be additionally altered and actually made "worse" again on purpose, without the decition/agreement of the engineer. Why did we (we engineers), who were adapting both systems, asked to work properly then anyway?
Think about it.
This system is flawed on all hands. Yes, even the K-System. But in this case, we at least don't need to care if a track is in DR14 if the track is totally in the K-14 Standard (with proper used amber zone). But aparently, it isn't.
I just did two other tests:
One being a production I'm working on from a German musician based mostly on drums, insane bass and crazy psychedelic guitar stuff. With the old render, I could get as good as DR13, but here the meters on the K-System were already constantly in the amber zone, and the peak barely reached 0dBFS.
Since this was an old rough mix, I'm sure I can do a bit better with the in-depth mixing, but chances are that I will loose out on dynamic thanks due to the heavy distorted guitars and the bass.
Another track I checked was from the Crystal Methos "Double Down Under" Remix contest. I only had a rough mix from the stems that I quickly made for KVR, no FX, nothing. The bass was massively distorted (a synth) but overall the track was fairly leveled out. Problem here: I could only get around DR6 to DR8, even though I was on K-14 and the loudest peak didn't reach -3dBFS.
You see the problem there? It's depending on the material you get. And no matter how much you turn up the upper harmonics, you only hurt your ears rather than getting a suitable and in this case "required dynamic.
And this is where all the troubles start. The loudness is "still" the same if you use both the K-System and the DR-System accordingly (aka: K-12 without amber zone and keeping an eye on the dynamic range), but the dynamic is not.
So chances are that you have a totally dynamic mixed and metered album (K-14) but in DR it is like DR9. Now according to the specifications/the plan of the developers of this standard, the volume has to be adjusted, so that the loudness of the DR9 album resembles the one of a DR14 album, even though they ARE already at the same loudness levels (in this case, K-14).
This is nonsense if you ask me. Proper engineered and mastered tracks will then be additionally altered and actually made "worse" again on purpose, without the decition/agreement of the engineer. Why did we (we engineers), who were adapting both systems, asked to work properly then anyway?
Think about it.
-
tony tony chopper tony tony chopper https://www.kvraudio.com/forum/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=3103
- KVRAF
- 3561 posts since 20 Jun, 2002
That's because the release was too long, it should be shorter for movies. Autogains are MADE for what you just described. If the sound of keys dropped on a table is 10x louder than vocals (as usual), you need something to hear what's being said without risking a heart attack when someone drops his keys on a table.Autogain is a definite horrow for both movies and music alike. Last time I was watching Battlestar with Autogain on, I was like "shit what are they saying" righter after an explosion or some background noise going out of hand.
For music it should have a long release, to basically autogain pieces of music when they change, not in the middle.
DOLPH WILL PWNZ0R J00r LAWZ!!!!
-
- KVRAF
- Topic Starter
- 14740 posts since 19 Oct, 2003 from Berlin, Germany
Still that'd make our engineering work useless and a proper implementation won't happen that soon anyway, since everybody listen to music how he/she feels like it.
-
- Banned
- 1842 posts since 4 Aug, 2004 from just right here
Is this wat da scientoligists use, did you make your track too loud? 
Anyway it is interesting. This wiki loudness war article might be of help.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loudness_war
Im not realy into too much compression and nor the radio. What about tape compression would that have effect on meters reading? ....mmmmm... Besides a track, what about the whole album in general. VSTi can be quite compressed sounding Im getting different readings whith this King Crimson - lark tounges in aspic. Its a very dynamic album.
1 - DR 11
2 - DR 12
3 - DR 12
4 - DR 12
5 - DR 13
6 - DR 10
Anyway it is interesting. This wiki loudness war article might be of help.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loudness_war
Im not realy into too much compression and nor the radio. What about tape compression would that have effect on meters reading? ....mmmmm... Besides a track, what about the whole album in general. VSTi can be quite compressed sounding Im getting different readings whith this King Crimson - lark tounges in aspic. Its a very dynamic album.
1 - DR 11
2 - DR 12
3 - DR 12
4 - DR 12
5 - DR 13
6 - DR 10
-
- KVRer
- 12 posts since 7 Mar, 2006
It seems that most of you are getting pissed, because you put your tracks thru this plug and realized that your lifeless mixes are just crap. (Dynamic Wise)
I did the same with several “official Releases” and guess what???
lifeless commercial pop records = DR 6 or worse
normal / good sounding records = DR 7 to DR 9
my favorite high end records = DR 10 to DR 15
Now go ahead with your “squashed melodic noise” that you have ruined
with your fancy compressor/limiter plugins.
Don't expect me to buy or listen to that stuff, because …………….
my Accuphase got a Volume Knob !!!
I did the same with several “official Releases” and guess what???
lifeless commercial pop records = DR 6 or worse
normal / good sounding records = DR 7 to DR 9
my favorite high end records = DR 10 to DR 15
Now go ahead with your “squashed melodic noise” that you have ruined
with your fancy compressor/limiter plugins.
Don't expect me to buy or listen to that stuff, because …………….
my Accuphase got a Volume Knob !!!