K-Meters are now "Dynamic Range Meters"?

[eduardo_b]

I'm looking at the last CD I released with these meters. In one instance a very quiet piano ballad (DR16) fades right into a very loud pop song (DR8). The result is supposed to be a bit jarring, we worked hard on that transition while mastering.

To say that "anyone with sufficient artistic skills won't have artistic freedom issues with moderately reduced loudness and increased dynamic range" isn't a fair representation of the discussion here.

I have to disagree. The transition you wanted, in fact, depends on a wider dynamic range for the contrast to exist. You can't actually raise the noise floor without making the piano closer in loudness to the adjacent pop song -- reducing, not increasing, the contrast. I don't understand why you think it would be worse, not better, with less loudness from compression or limiting.

Which is why I said that with the skills, it's actually possible to find plenty of creative space with reduced loudness and increased dynamic range. Yes, the precise balance varies with the material, but maximum loudness takes the least skill and has the poorest results.

Not a personal point about yourself in any way. I'm making a very broad observation here.

[Cordelia]

I'm looking at the last CD I released with these meters. In one instance a very quiet piano ballad (DR16) fades right into a very loud pop song (DR8). The result is supposed to be a bit jarring, we worked hard on that transition while mastering.

To say that "anyone with sufficient artistic skills won't have artistic freedom issues with moderately reduced loudness and increased dynamic range" isn't a fair representation of the discussion here.

I have to disagree. The transition you wanted, in fact, depends on a wider dynamic range for the contrast to exist. You can't actually raise the noise floor without making the piano closer in loudness to the adjacent pop song -- reducing, not increasing, the contrast. I don't understand why you think it would be worse, not better, with less loudness from compression or limiting.

Which is why I said that with the skills, it's actually possible to find plenty of creative space with reduced loudness and increased dynamic range. Yes, the precise balance varies with the material, but maximum loudness takes the least skill and has the poorest results.

Not a personal point about yourself in any way. I'm making a very broad observation here.

I didn't make myself clear. What I mean is that the transition works perfectly in context, and still the ballad is loud enough to sound fine when singled out for play in a CD changer, or in an iPod. But if it were reduced in volume by 6dB simply because the next song on my CD has less dynamic range, it would be too quiet to be heard clearly when played before or after other material from a different CD.

[sinzero]

if a song has just guitar and vocal, it will probably have less dynamic variation than a song with guitar, bass, drums and vocal.

but in a recording, they can have more or less the same loudness with plenty of dynamic variation. Or the 1st can be softer, still with lots of dynamics and follow each other. if you can maintain the dynamics and make them loud that is not a problem

the issue is not so much about how loud stuff is but how dynamic variation is reduced in order to make the song as loud as possible. That is not good

dynamics in music have ebb and flow. we shouldn't take that away just to make a record as loud as possible.

[Compyfox]

To say that "anyone with sufficient artistic skills won't have artistic freedom issues with moderately reduced loudness and increased dynamic range" isn't a fair representation of the discussion here.

Agreed, and this is why I started this discussion in the first place.

The Dynamic Range Meters alone wouldn't work in your example. Actually it wouldn't work on a track by track basis, but would measure the "loudest parts" of the whole album and then declare the album dynamic (which is what this thing is actually made for: declaring the starndard for one full CD production).

Then, if it says "okay the dynamic is in DR6", it will be adjusted in volume accordingly to fit DR-14 again, like you said already, Cordelia. So DR-16 tracks would then be DR-22 and DR-6 Tracks then something like DR-12 according to specs. But in reality it is STILL DR-6 and DR-16, only that they're more quiet in terms of loudness. The "peak to general loudness value" is just shifted down, but since this happened "after" the mastering, the peak which got as high as -0,3dB is now adjusted by -6dB. But since it was limited to -0,3dBFS and was just turned down "after" the mastering it doesn't go over -6,3dBFS. You see the problem right there?


And this without disregarding the fact, that an album might have already been mastered in K-14, which is hard to sell on the market as it already is. This album "was" mixed and mastered properly already, why destroy the work even further? And this is still a IMO major quirk to pin down.


Unless, and I say it again, I'm totally mistaken here. But, and I also say it again, I wasn't proven wrong so far either. This is why I am going to Musikmesse 2009 to discuss this issue further.



BTW:
Rock songs, even from the 80ies, can have DR-System ranges from DR-10 to DR-8, even heard rocksongs from the 70ies with those values, while having an RMS Value of K-14 (Thin Lizzy, Hendrix as example, one of the less who already used proper bass mixing). It depends on the lowend (bass)/distorted (guitar) material and how dense a production is mixed. Does it mean those stuff needs to be adjusted because the dynamic is less than DR-14?

[_dada_]

I didn't make myself clear. What I mean is that the transition works perfectly in context, and still the ballad is loud enough to sound fine when singled out for play in a CD changer, or in an iPod. But if it were reduced in volume by 6dB simply because the next song on my CD has less dynamic range, it would be too quiet to be heard clearly when played before or after other material from a different CD.

Not quite correct ( if we assume the DR-model would work ).
All other overcompressed material would be reduced in volume, too,
so the difference would be the same.
The hardware volume would be raised by 6 db and everything would be as before,
with the significant difference, that material with more dynamics
( and thus more 'listening pleasure' ) will not sound lower in volume.

Then there will be the learning process :
Your DR8 songs will be DR11 for the next release and You will have less problems
linking it to DR16 material, when mastering.

Regarding DR14 as standard :
I guess that's a bit over the top.
With todays technologie, something like DR11/10 would be a better solution.
But AFAIK that's not decided, yet.

The most important part of all this is, to stop Dr4-2 releases,
as they're hurting the industry by reducing sales
and turning poeple away from music !

AND
regarding artistic freedom :
Sorry, but this is the biggest joke, ever.
1) Since 2 decades, radio has taken away all your artistic decisions,
by smashing songs to the bone, making silent intros sounding much louder than the chorus, etc. etc.
2) If you artistically decide, to completely distort and smash Your songs,
so that no one can listen to them, longer than a few minutes ...
Don't worry, the effect will stay exactly the same, even if reduced by 8 db !
3) for many, many mastering engineers, the DR system would bring back their artistic freedom !
Which has been taken away by record companies, demanding certain RMS values.

Bye, Jan

[Shy]

for many, many mastering engineers, the DR system would bring back their artistic freedom !
Which has been taken away by record companies, demanding certain RMS values.

And for many, it wouldn't, and it would hurt them instead. So what's your point? Place more restrictions that may benefit some and hurt others? Either way, this system will not solve anything regarding how mixes sound. A mix that sounds like a mixture of white, pink and brown noise from hell could be reduced in volume and suddenly it will become "compliant". If people are so desperate to comply (submit/obey) to someone who tells them how their music should sound, fine, but they better comply to rules that can actually make sense in the first place.

It's too bad if you don't mind tolerating music being categorized using numbers that can very well be misleading, misused and cause even more headaches for artists as well as listeners, and simply just be yet another guise for prejudice that can be used against you and limit your crowd reach and even income. It might be a good standard for critics. From then on they could have a great excuse to dismiss you completely based on your "supposed" target audience/medium/genre/whatever they see fit to claim falls under your "number" (I see a similarity to some more extreme "systems").

[Liquidclear]

This idea is dumb and unnecessary. Use a volume knob.

[mystran]

Can't we make a song which is composed with a single square wave, full scale, with non-stop action without any envelope or anything such that it measures 0dBfs RMS.. and then proclaim the loudness wars being won once and for ever?

..cos that'd like fast forward us to where we're going anyway..

[tony tony chopper]

This idea is dumb and unnecessary. Use a volume knob.

Yes, but how many times do you see threads about self-called musicians who make claims about audio engines, simply because of volume differences? "I put a sample in host X, it sounds better than in host Y"

Loudness means quality for our ears. The listener indeed just has to use his volume knob, but if even *musicians* (or self-called audio engineers) are fooled as well, how can you assume that the listener will be intelligent enough to raise his volume?
He plays a song, if the next one is much quieter, it "sounds bad", it's that simple.

[Compyfox]

Folks, easy please. Let's go back being objective.

Since I'm at their Musikmesse booth next week, why not create a plan or a longer document with constructive critism that I can present to them as reclamation to the current presented timetable and general plan.


So far we have the thing with:
- Bass needs to be taken into consideration
- It needs a different system as backbone
- As "MEtering Alone" for declaring styles it doesn't work (general hypernym)


If we can finetune it, and stay objective in the process, I'm fairly sure the developers will listen to the userbase (aka: musicians, engineers and music listeners alike).

If we find a general broad agreement by Saturday, I'm sure we're one step further along the "long hard road out of hell" (Marilyn Manson).

[nuffink]

Can't we make a song which is composed with a single square wave, full scale, with non-stop action without any envelope or anything such that it measures 0dBfs RMS.. and then proclaim the loudness wars being won once and for ever?

...and hold for 4'33".

[mystran]

Can't we make a song which is composed with a single square wave, full scale, with non-stop action without any envelope or anything such that it measures 0dBfs RMS.. and then proclaim the loudness wars being won once and for ever?

...and hold for 4'33".

3'15" is probably better length.. but we can make a 8'50" club-remix too.

[Liquidclear]

Can't we make a song which is composed with a single square wave, full scale, with non-stop action without any envelope or anything such that it measures 0dBfs RMS.. and then proclaim the loudness wars being won once and for ever?

...and hold for 4'33".

3'15" is probably better length.. but we can make a 8'50" club-remix too.

Might as well have a 5.1 mix as well

[tonAP]

But seeing from the specs of it, it can only measure peaks (volume) in dBFS, and not loudness (RMS).

But the point is, since when does RMS measure loudness?

That's an interesting point. Funny: IIRC Katz (the guru ;-) wrote about himself waiting for a loudness measurement's algorithm better than RMS. I'm not quoting him here since i didn't learn by heart: pretty sure there's a similar concept about the K-system on his site..

[Edit: spelling]

[Compyfox]

The main problem with all these RMS meters is still that they respond stronger to bass intesive material, since it's "hotter" (voltage wise) than high frequency ridden material - while our ears are fooled in the process: more bass = more quiet especially if the harmonics are missing.

It's a measurement vs psychoacoustic thing.

At least to my knowledge/experience.