I also wanted to see if this whole topic maybe evokes by itself, but I think I have to be more upfront in terms of presenting a certain idea, that currenty stirs up the engineering world as we speak.
Last year, at the end of August, especially Europe and a lot of selected countries all over the world adapted the so called "EBU R-128" loudness standard. In short, it's a standard intended for a unified loudness while broadcasting. This saves you from heavy loudness jumps while watching TV, or even at cinemas. Even though it is still happening to a certain extend.
The thing is however, that the music realm was almost left out of the context. At first, it is totally logical since this standard is aimed at broadcast environments, not engineers. But the Loudness War doesn't find an end, if only the broadcasts are normalized.
Example:
Take a recording from the 90ies with a huge dynamic range (or crest factor for that matter) and a loudness of (fictional) K-17. Like: Michael Jackson (the "HIStory" collection) or Dire Straits (Money for Nothing). Then run it through a normal broadcast chain (studio -> studio comp -> preparation station -> broadcast station). The endresult is a fairly normalised song with tons of transients that doesn't sound squashed or pumped.
Now in direct contrast, let's take a look at the "Day that Never Comes" song by Metallica, mixed and mastered in 2008, with a loudness of about K-5(!) ran through the same chain until it reaches the listeners ears. The endresult is an uber-loud, pumping and noticable distorted playback. Even with normalisation schemes. Why? Because the original song was too hot mastered to begin with. So even with Loudness Normalisation schemes, you loose out on the transients and in worst case, you get audible pumping due to the broadcast studio compressors.
Is there a Solution?Currently there are no real schemes in motion to fight against that dillema. In my opinion, the war needs to be extinguished right at it's source - and that would mean while post production, and especially mastering. As usual, the opinions have become a habit, and debates about this topic are heated. Of course, and thankfully, there are certain people these days that think different on that behalf.
One prime exampe is Skip Burrows with his infamous post over at GearSlutz called "The Reason Most ITB mixes don't Sound as good as Analog mixes". He encourages to stick to gain staging schemes and not push everything to 0dBFS within the DAW or outboard gear.
Another example is Bob Katz, who recently switched from using his own K-System to using configured meters of the EBU R-128 standard. But as with the first introduction of the K-System, his ideas are still pushed aside as "utter nonsense".
I heartfully have to disagree.
Through the course of the last summer, and at the time the drama came up that "EBU R-128 will be the only defacto standard in the audio realm", I sat down for a couple of weeks to analyse the meter. And to find a way to use it for music post production and mastering as well. I had heated debates with Mister Katz and some of the developers of the EBU R-128 in the process, but it paid off. As with Slate Digital briding the gap towards understanding proper gain staging again, Mister Katz directed me to incorporating the K-System idea with the EBU R-128 meter standard.
In July 2012 I released a white paper that collects all these ideas, and bridges the gap between musicians and broadcasters. I call it K-System v2, which is silently accepted by Mister Katz (since it was originally his idea, but I developed it further).
You can find the white paper on my technical blog:
http://techblog.studio-compyfox.de/
(PDF, 144kb, 20 pages, duplex-print ready)
In short:
This white paper picks up the color code idea and the reference level shift of the K-System v1, but ports it over to the EBU R-128 "Momentary Loudness" meter.
The K-System v1 meters are at 600ms integration time, and like the VU (ANSI C16.5-1942, British Standard BS 6840, and IEC 60268-17 standard), it's non weighted. But their main flaw (just like the DR-Meters) were that they responded too strong on lowend content. However, the most dangerous content to our ears are the upper frequency ranges.
The k-weighting of the EBU R-128, or ITU-R BS.1770-2 standard for that matter, utilize a lowcut and highshelf filtering scheme prior to measurement. Due to this, the meters don't respond as strong to bass intensive material but more balanced (dare I say "compensated") and more "true" to our ears. The ballistics also shift back to 400ms rise/fall.
More about EBU R-128/ITU-R BS.1770-2 can be read at:
http://tech.ebu.ch/loudness/
But... this doesn't end there.There will be certain engineers and "garage producers" again that think "meh, why do I need this?! It's not important". Wrong way of thinking in my opinion. We still have the problem with the broadcasting. But also (if not especially) while playback on home devices (CD, MP3 players, DVD players, etc). This is where the so called "Music Loudness Alliance" comes into play.
Who are they?
The alliance is formed of the very same people that originally worked on developing the EBU R-128 standard. With this alliance, they try to offer a solution for loudness normalisation while playback. Meaning: built in schemes in MP3 players that let you change the volume of your devices, but the overall loudness of all your tracks on the player stay the same.
There is a lot more involved (like: playback in loud environments), but this would clearly go beyond the scope of this discussion. Please educate yourself with the whole scheme over here:
http://music-loudness.com/
This brings me to certain comments I made in various posts all over KVR: K-16(v2)K-16v2, or -16LUFS, is the planned average loudness for music for all kinds of players. Rumors have it that iTunes (software) already implemented loudness normalisation schemes to stay around that value. Though I can't confirm it yet. It came up around summer 2012 as well, while I had contact with the developers of the EBU R-128 standard, and the "Alliance".
To some people, this is a rather drastic drop from used to loudness values like RMS -7/-6/-5. Though think about it... The lower the loudness, the higher the dynamic range, the more "dynamic" a production sounds - and you don't torture your ears as much. You can still turn up the volume with your playback devices. Though granted, certain digital system have a limit or the DAC can't take a specific signal (see "Music Loudness Alliance" proposals). But clipping peaks is still better than clipping the whole average signal.
The original concept was to actually go down to -23LUFS, just like broadcasting. But this caused a major uproar in both the industry and musicians alike. Hence the introduction of the "Alliance". I heard from befriended engineers that this whole topic was also heatedly debated at the last AES (2nd half of 2012), and all participants agreed that there need to be subsequent works on the matter. And this is where my white paper chimes in yet again.
In my white paper, I offered a so called "timeline" to gradually reduce the loudness from K-12 and higher, down to K-16 as good balance between broadcasting mixes (read: movies documentaries, etc) and consumer mixes (read: music). Funny enough (and at that time unknown to me), this resolves around the same value that is rumored to be "final" with iTunes. And even more surprising, this is exactly the limitation of full dynamic EBU R-128 mixes.
Full dynamic EBU R-128 can have a loudness fluctuation of up to about +9LU. At least according to the official white papers of the standard (EBU R-128/ITU-R BS.1770-2). So "K-16v2 Dynamic" would mean, that the upper limit is actually -16LUFS, and the average signal can be anything between -23LUFS and -16LUFS, which is a drastic fluctuation (hence the "Integrated Loudness" with the +/- 1LU limit!). Though I'd only use K-16v2 dynamic for mixing broacast content (movies) and orchestra, not for popular music like rock/pop/electronic.
"But sir, K-16 is still too quiet".Dear Sir and Madam - sorry, not at all. I redirect to the "Gain Staging" debates again. Yes, the ones where you actually use a reference level for both recording and mixing. And that might usually be -20dBFS (SMTPE), or more common -18dBFS (EBU) for loudness, and -9dBFS for digital peaks. (see: PPM on Wikipedia)
Agreed, ITB we can pretty much do what the heck we want, but if we use the best of both worlds, OTB and ITB, we can't go that route. And we shouldn't either. Especially with the recent swamping of analog type plugins. Which will only grow in numbers through the course of the next years (I'm sure of that).
Now let's assume we stick to the rules that the individual channels don't exceed -18dBFS (RMS, bass intensive material) or -9dBFS (transient heavy material) while peaking in. Then we mix to our hearts content, but don't exceed +1 VU (again, reference level -18dBFS) on the summing bus with fortissimo (read: very loud) passages of the song. What do we have? Exactly - a theoretical K-17/AZ-0 mix. But this doesn't end there.
K-16v2 has an average loudness limit of -16LUFS. But like the K-System v1, there is still the amber zone for fortissimo passages. And that can reach up to -14LUFS. Though unlike the K-System v1, I advise NOT to constantly stay there. It won't be possible either.
So, if you mix at -18dBFS/0VU, then master it for K-16v2, your average signal will be around -18LUFS to -16LUFS (mezzoforte passages), and peak up until -14LUFS (fortissimo passages) - though I won't kill you if you go to -13LUFS for a very short while (the Spagetti God will handle that). You have a (theoretical) "dynamic" loudness range of over 6dB, and your peaks can go haywire up until the allowed -1dBFS. The same works for K-14, only shifted by 2dB of course.
The endresult is a (moderate) loud production, no clipping. You don't even need a drastically setup brickwall limiter - if none at all. Best of both worlds. And, it's compatible to future planned loudness normalisation schemes. Not to mention that it's easy to print on every medium without further drastical editing: vinyl, tape, MP3, HD audio, etc.
Is it too quiet? Turn up the volume.
"I like your ideas sir, but what meters can I use? How do I need to setup my equipment?!".
Setting up your equipment is still a heated debate. The K-System uses a pink noise to calibrate your speakers to an output level of 86dB RMS (C-weighted). But to some, this is too loud. Doesn't hold you off from using it though, or calibrating the speakers to whatever loudness you feel most comfortable with (if setup loud).
Most important is the calibration of the meters however. They are your visual guides, your savety rope, telling you what's going on and what your upper limit is.
There are several tools on the market that can be fully customized to your needs. In the VST realm there is:
- Grimm Audio LevelView (apparently, even a S variant now, for 140EUR excl VAT)
- TC Electronic LM2 and LM6
- Nugen Audio VisLM (though the scale can't be shifted properly)
The first VST plugin that offers the K-System v2 presets "built in":
- ToneBoosters EBU Loudness/Compact (15 EUR, bundle)
With more and more developers interested in adapting the K-System v2 idea...
If you don't want to spend a fortune, or don't need 5.1 measurement, logging and all that jazz, I recommend to take a closer look at ToneBoosters for the time being.
SUMMARY:
We are not debating in whether or not a certain production "needs" to be loud in order to groove. This can be done with proper mixing. Neither do we debate if a mix must have a certain loudness in order to be "enjoyable" while out on the streets. For this, we either have volume knobs or at a certain forseeable future, the "Loudness Normalisation for Music on Playback".
We are debating in terms of how to fight against uber-loud productions in general. Or right at it's root - read: post production and mastering. What to do to steer back. Even though the K-System v2 is another interim solution, it is a proposal to drive back on the long run.
Something that is IMO simple and actually works.
You can stick to it and don't have to sweat if there is a big-bang in the audio realm regarding loudness schemes. Or you can ignore it and need to adapt from one day to anther. Nobody is forcing you to anything - currently.
But... think about it.
Let's assume(!!!) the "Playback Loudness Normalisation" by the Music Loudness Alliance will be put into place by Summer 2013 (assuming that the software providers play along, there is suitable hardware and the masses are covered). Now play your K-5 mastered song right after a K-14 mastered one. Even thuogh the normalisation process offeres a balanced listening experience, the K-5 mix will sound degraded.
So why not improve on this now rather than realising this problem through (possible) sales or negative feedback at a later state?
"BRAIN - it's the new mojo" (tm) - not how loud your productions are, or what gear you used in order to get there.
TL;DR:The K-System v2 is an upgraded setup (color codes, reference level) to measure loudness with the EBU R-128 Momentary Loudness Meter instead of using unweighted meters at 600ms and reference levels of -20/-14/-12dBFS.
It is not aimed to be used while recording/mixing. For this I highly advice to use the VU (300ms/-18dBFS reference) and Digital Meter combo. Only use the K-System v2 meter for checking the mixdown, or while mastering.
If you are not into Post Production or Mastering, this does not(!) convern you.
Want to know more:
http://techblog.studio-compyfox.de/
Maybe also educate yourself with:
http://tech.ebu.ch/loudness/
http://music-loudness.com/
And/Or follow my KVRmarks:
http://www.kvraudio.com/kvrmarks.php?u=9761
Interesting YouTube material:
Loudness: War & Peace by Bob Katz, Nov 2011
TC Electronic Loudness and the EBU R128 Broadcast Standard by Florian Camerer, Jul 2011 (I also recommend "Bob Katz about Loudness War" and the "Rome Calling" video series with Thomas Lund
Loudness War: Dynamic vs. Massive compressed mixdowns
Thanks for reading and debating.
EDIT:
Added link, changed a paragraph for easier understanding.
