K-Meters are now "Dynamic Range Meters"?

[Compyfox]

The artcle on wikipedia is always overhyped if you ask me.

In terms of tape compression, I guess the DR reading would shrink. In worst cases even drastic. This is where I can only quote over and over again:

Phase 2 begins on June 30, 2010. At that time, all record companies which have agreed to Commitment 2 will release albums with a minimum dynamic range of DR14. Less dynamic CDs will be given an appropriate amount of headroom and will be labeled with the dynamic range they contain.

For example, if an album with DR8 is released, it will also be labeled with DR8 and given 6 dB of headroom, so that it will be as loud as DR14 releases. In this way, different releases will have the same loudness when played.

This is a strict NO-NO.

Producers and record companies have an incentive to really use the available dynamic range in the next release.

And this doesn't work in practical experience, as written further up. Even if a track is K-14, which is full dynamic (Pop/Rock Material), it can still be compressed to DR9 or worse.

Does it then need to be adjusted even further? Is it really the engineers fault? Should we dial out the life of a recording just to get high dynamic range values?

Not in my book.

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)

Er... thanks for the insult, but I usually know what I'm doing if I use the K-System (K-14 and K-12 mostly). And this since January 2004 now.

[AK--47]

Er... thanks for the insult, but I usually know what I'm doing if I use the K-System (K-14 and K-12 mostly). And this since January 2004 now.

So all your mixes got a DR 12 -14?

or what are you trying to tell me?

[Compyfox]

Do you actually know what the K-System is and what this new meter, the Dynamic Range Meter does? If not, I'd highly recommend you on reading up on it.


What I try to state here is a fact, that even though if a track is properly mixed and mastered in K-14 (K-System), chances are that the Dynamic Range Meter shows you values that're way too high for that particular standard (DR-Metering), and your recording "needs to be adjusted" by these guidelines, even though they need not.

This is all I'm trying to say here.

[tonAP]

Edit:
Deleted as i wasn't sure :)
But i'm getting bored of the whole stuff :(

DR0 :}

[AK--47]

The The K-System exists since 1999.
Had that lead to more dynamically richer mixes overall?
I don’t think so.

So the Guys from Algorithmix (maybe you heard of their other shitty plugins ) are a bunch of idiots, throwing away their name for a freeware that is not correspondending with your mixes?

Please be a little bit more open minded to new concepts.

[David Else]

compyfox, i think you have got a little confused somewhere along the way.

DR and K systems are not the same thing. The reading in the DR system is showing you the overall compression/density of the loudest parts, not the overall dynamics of the whole mix. it is to show overcompression/limiting of mixes, it's not some kind of nazi dynamic policeman telling you how to make your music

So chances are that you have a totally dynamic mixed and metered album (K-14) but in DR it is like DR9

the DR meter is accurate, but it is not the K system. There are some good pop tracks at DR9, like the gorillaz 'Dare'. the production on that song is amazing. i would say any higher than DR9 and things start to sound bad, i imagine the gorilaz very expensive mastering engineer felt the same way.

what exactly is the problem?! the DR system is exactly what is needed today! please give it some love

[tonAP]

a bunch of idiots

I (think) understand your sense of humour + the emoticons
but, please don't walk that way. 'kay?

[AK--47]

it's not some kind of nazi dynamic policeman telling you how to make your music

the DR system is exactly what is needed today! please give it some love

[Grain Bastard]

The The K-System exists since 1999.
Had that lead to more dynamically richer mixes overall?
I don't think so.

So the Guys from Algorithmix (maybe you heard of their other shitty plugins ) are a bunch of idiots, throwing away their name for a freeware that is not correspondending with your mixes?

Please be a little bit more open minded to new concepts.

Your asking me to be more open minded about letting someone else decide how I should mix my own music????

To be honest, I'm not sure if the Algorithmix guys are not idiots judging by their plugin prices. I'd say they live in a very different world to the majority of us, possibly in extreme poverty or maybe they're proper minted....who know's???? Harp makers though if you ask me.

I reckon this will be about as effective as the 'explicit lyrics' stickers on hip hop records successes in cutting gun crime.

[AK--47]

a bunch of idiots

I (think) understand your sense of humour + the emoticons
but, please don't walk that way. 'kay?

ok,i'm trying to be a bit less emotional.

But I love good recordings, that's why I got so excited about this plug.

[tonAP]

But I love good recordings, that's why I got so excited about this plug.

ok, so you think "this plug" will do good recordings(?)

Edit:
Oops forgot the emoticon:

[druid]

I don't understand this stuff very well, so forgive me if I'm getting it wrong... But if something has too much loudness (RMS I guess?) and had to be given headroom, does that mean the recording would no longer maintain the full 16-bit? Because it wouldn't have high sample values?

And even if not, doesn't this mean that by having higher peaks, there's less bit-range for the lower volumes?

Tell you what, standards makers, assuming I'm even vaguely right with what I said, you start releasing 24-bit audio, so that I don't care about the range anymore. I don't want most of the content of the music to only occupy 0-50000 of sample values.

(I know I'm way oversimplifying things here, and if I, even after taking over-simplification into account, still have things wrong, please correct me, for I am but a poor hobbyist .)

p.s. I love dynamics (to some degree), definitely recordings are too loud out there, but .. I'm not entirely sure, but I think I'm on compyfox's side here.. I think... I haven't worked with it enough to be sure of everything however.

[AK--47]

But I love good recordings, that's why I got so excited about this plug.

ok, so you think "this plug" will do good recordings(?)

Edit:
Oops forgot the emoticon:

no,it won't.

A good engineer/mixer/componist/whatever can make excellent recordings even without such a plug. (E.g. Günther Pauler/Stockfisch Records)

But it may help some people to get a clue what goes wrong these days with most commercial releases.

[Nystul]

Do you actually know what the K-System is and what this new meter, the Dynamic Range Meter does? If not, I'd highly recommend you on reading up on it.


What I try to state here is a fact, that even though if a track is properly mixed and mastered in K-14 (K-System), chances are that the Dynamic Range Meter shows you values that're way too high for that particular standard (DR-Metering), and your recording "needs to be adjusted" by these guidelines, even though they need not.

This is all I'm trying to say here.

It's already very common amongst people who use computer as a jukebox to use ReplayGain, with it's own standard on exactly how dynamic every song should be. Hence, they are already lowering the gain of your tracks without your approval because some guideline says it "needs to be adjusted". And yes, virtually any pop track in recent memory does get it's gain lowered by that system.

That said, ReplayGain or similar playback functionality has the advantage of treating recordings from different eras in the same way. If we force gain reduction on new CDs while people still have the old, louder ones (not to mention loud ones from any outfit that doesn't agree to the new system), it creates a new problem. I think it is a problem better solved on the playback hardware end. With people listening to music more and more as singles rather than albums, some sort of solution *will* happen. I hope that solution will indeed involve lower the gain of virtually every pop song in the world, because the alternative of throwing every harp solo through a one size fits all limiter on every playback device until it is as crushed as Metallica doesn't sound too attractive.

[Compyfox]

DR and K systems are not the same thing. The reading in the DR system is showing you the overall compression/density of the loudest parts, not the overall dynamics of the whole mix. it is to show overcompression/limiting of mixes, it's not some kind of nazi dynamic policeman telling you how to make your music

I never said I didn't get that. I know that the DR-System is showing the "dynamic" of a song and the K-System actually a certain loudness level standard and is for calibrating your speaker system. K-System meters were more or less guides first which are now mostly used as setting absolute upper limits. All in the name of stopping the loudness race.


It's not about that "policeman" I'm having trouble with, I'm having concerns about the set "rules" for this system which are planned to be pushed through by summer 2010.

the DR meter is accurate, but it is not the K system. There are some good pop tracks at DR9, like the gorillaz 'Dare'. the production on that song is amazing. i would say any higher than DR9 and things start to sound bad, i imagine the gorilaz very expensive mastering engineer felt the same way.

what exactly is the problem?! the DR system is exactly what is needed today! please give it some love

I respect that system, no doubt about that. But, and this is what I'm trying to say all along, it isn't working.


Example again (Example 1) - fictional in this particular case, but I tried this myself over the day with several tracks I had in my queue:

A pop track has moderate bass, lots of strings, normal vocals. Is normaly treated from soft to strong compression.

- The Readouts in the K-System Meter is K-14, it uses the amber zone for Mezzoforte Passages only (RMS values: -14,3dB RMS to -12,5dB RMS)
- The fullscale peak goes no higher than -1,2dBFS on the left, and -0,8dBFS on the right
- The Dynamic Range of the track hovers around between -15 and -11, the standalone meter declares it as DR13


Example 2:

A rock track has hi gain guitars, well sitting bass, a loud singer which is compared to a pop production not much louder however. (tested a rough mix)

- The Readouts in the K-System Meter is K-14, it uses the amber zone for Mezzoforte Passages (RMS values: -14dB RMS to -11,5dB RMS)
- The fullscale peak goes no higher than -0,3dBFS on the left, and -0,3dBFS on the right
- The Dynamic Range of the track hovers around between -12 and -9, the standalone meter declares it as DR9


Example 3:

An electronic track (for this I abused Crystal Method's Remix project), features an higain distorted bass, which is lowcut however, lots of synths/arps/etc, some vocal stabs. Track was barely compressed (rough mix), but screams for a pumping beat/bass.

- The Readouts in the K-System Meter is K-14, it uses the full amber zone for Mezzoforte Passages completely due to the bass (RMS values: -14dB RMS to -9,7dB RMS in bass heavy parts), since bass eats on the RMS meter, even though if it's not perceived that way
- The fullscale peak goes no higher than -1,8dBFS on the left, and -2dBFS on the right
- The Dynamic Range of the track hovers around between -9 and -6, the standalone meter declares it as DR7


You see what the practical problem is there?
While you're still in the allowed/declared K-System/Loudness standards (in both your speaker setup and the guide for a final loudness), the dynamic range can differ DRASTICALLY even if the loudness doesn't change.

According to the guidelines of the DR-Metering system:

For example, if an album with DR8 is released, it will also be labeled with DR8 and given 6 dB of headroom, so that it will be as loud as DR14 releases. In this way, different releases will have the same loudness when played.

This is done post-mastering. It is not implemented in any hardware matrix or something.

It's already very common amongst people who use computer as a jukebox to use ReplayGain, with it's own standard on exactly how dynamic every song should be. Hence, they are already lowering the gain of your tracks without your approval because some guideline says it "needs to be adjusted". And yes, virtually any pop track in recent memory does get it's gain lowered by that system.

This particular system doesn't instate any replay gain at all. Replay gain is not[/b] an issue in this case. It could be an implementation (IMO a bad one) at a later state, but in this case it is not relevant.

I don't understand this stuff very well, so forgive me if I'm getting it wrong... But if something has too much loudness (RMS I guess?) and had to be given headroom, does that mean the recording would no longer maintain the full 16-bit? Because it wouldn't have high sample values?

It is actually laid out for 44kHz/16bit only at the moment.

And even if not, doesn't this mean that by having higher peaks, there's less bit-range for the lower volumes?

Actually this is why there is dithering involved and why, before the final mastering process, tracks are usually altered to have bitrates up to 32bit float.

Tell you what, standards makers, assuming I'm even vaguely right with what I said, you start releasing 24-bit audio, so that I don't care about the range anymore. I don't want most of the content of the music to only occupy 0-50000 of sample values.

Tell that to the standard makers who're still on lossy formats which use 16bit even while using surround (Dolby Digital/AC3), 20bit at max (BlueRay)

A good engineer/mixer/componist/whatever can make excellent recordings even without such a plug. (E.g. Günther Pauler/Stockfisch Records)

But it may help some people to get a clue what goes wrong these days with most commercial releases.

I agree to this, but the issue is a bit different here.

It not only "states" a certain dynamic range and a CD gets a sticker. The volume on less dynamic recorings is getting adjusted additionaly to push it back to a loudness (in this case DR14) which this track is already in due to proper mixing, metering and mastering (this is where the K-System has it's raison d'être).


This is the major problem I'm seing here.