K-Meters are now "Dynamic Range Meters"?

[mystran]

Now, it's perfectly understandable that radio stations and the like want to reduce the musical dynamic range somewhat, because most of us listen to radio a lot in very non-optimal situations.

at the same time, radio's already play special, shortened radio-edit versions of songs - so it's not really where it applies, nothing would change for them

True, but the situation is the same when you listen to your mp3 player.. which is actually a harder problem to solve anyway, if you still want to preserve dynamics for those occasions you do have optimal situations..

Oh well.. I personally don't mind some amount of dynamics processing (I can tolerate pretty much actually) but I absolutely hate it when stuff is peak limited to distortion (and I'm not going to admit I tend to do that myself anyway.. at least I'm not trying to sell my music to anyone though).

[eduardo_b]

You're still missing the point- all the songs on my CD get lowered by 6dB because of one, short, intentionally compressed song. That means that the more dynamic songs on my CD, arbitrarily lowered in volume by 6dB, will definitely sound quiet in comparison to other CDs.

Even if every song on my CD were DR16 except the one mastered intentionally loudly, all other eleven songs would be lowered by 6dB. Another CD, with songs ranging from hypothetical DR13-14 is left unchanged. The song on my CD that has a greater dynamic range than the songs on the hypothetical CD has, for no reason, been lowered in volume, and will now be from 6-10dB quieter than a song with less dynamic range from another CD.

Ah, now I see what you've been referring to. The issue of loudness from track to track on a CD is, of course, a mastering issue. That is perhaps the most important function of mastering. While I see your concern about the overall level of the CD compared to other CDs, I also think the fundamental issue is how the single more compressed track is set in terms of level. That is, it can be compressed, raising the noise floor, but the overall level of it can be reduced so that is doesn't exceed the levels of the other, less compressed tracks. The compression wouldn't be used to actually make that one track louder, but rather give the psychoacoustic impression that is seems louder...but without requiring the listener to turn down the volume.

At the same time, the dynamic range will be, in fact, less than the other tracks, and this is where the system needs to be applied with intelligence. Simply relying on dynamic range won't work, but when rms and peak levels are also used there is no reason to reduce the other tracks by 6 dB because it will be obvious that the actual loudness is no higher than the other tracks.

I'm not at all sure that a CD to CD comparison for exact levels and dynamic range serves any purpose. The focus on loudness as the single most important parameter was a complete mistake on the part of record companies. First, it's not nearly as important as it's made out to be, and, second, it actually undermines the function of the creative process by subverting it for the singular purpose of volume -- not for artistic reasons but for commercial reasons that were themselves an erroneous assumption. Now this all needs to be fixed. The solution may be imperfect, but no more so than the current loudness war is.

[eduardo_b]

I don't see less-than-ideal listening conditions as being a good deciding factor in overall loudness levels. Yes, some compression to decrease some of the dynamic range would be ideal for certain circumstances, and particularly worst case situations, but this is done at the expense of those listeners who have more appropriate listening environments for enjoying real world dynamic range. Those individuals pay the same amount for the same music but are penalized by the focus on the lowest common denominator. So much for artistic integrity.

[Cordelia]

Ah, now I see what you've been referring to. The issue of loudness from track to track on a CD is, of course, a mastering issue. That is perhaps the most important function of mastering. While I see your concern about the overall level of the CD compared to other CDs, I also think the fundamental issue is how the single more compressed track is set in terms of level. That is, it can be compressed, raising the noise floor, but the overall level of it can be reduced so that is doesn't exceed the levels of the other, less compressed tracks. The compression wouldn't be used to actually make that one track louder, but rather give the psychoacoustic impression that is seems louder...but without requiring the listener to turn down the volume.

At the same time, the dynamic range will be, in fact, less than the other tracks, and this is where the system needs to be applied with intelligence. Simply relying on dynamic range won't work, but when rms and peak levels are also used there is no reason to reduce the other tracks by 6 dB because it will be obvious that the actual loudness is no higher than the other tracks.

I'm not at all sure that a CD to CD comparison for exact levels and dynamic range serves any purpose. The focus on loudness as the single most important parameter was a complete mistake on the part of record companies. First, it's not nearly as important as it's made out to be, and, second, it actually undermines the function of the creative process by subverting it for the singular purpose of volume -- not for artistic reasons but for commercial reasons that were themselves an erroneous assumption. Now this all needs to be fixed. The solution may be imperfect, but no more so than the current loudness war is.

[herodotus]

I don't see less-than-ideal listening conditions as being a good deciding factor in overall loudness levels. Yes, some compression to decrease some of the dynamic range would be ideal for certain circumstances, and particularly worst case situations, but this is done at the expense of those listeners who have more appropriate listening environments for enjoying real world dynamic range. Those individuals pay the same amount for the same music but are penalized by the focus on the lowest common denominator. So much for artistic integrity.

Perhaps it's time for consumer level compressors. Most media players have an equalizer. Why not include a compressor too?

[eduardo_b]

I don't see less-than-ideal listening conditions as being a good deciding factor in overall loudness levels. Yes, some compression to decrease some of the dynamic range would be ideal for certain circumstances, and particularly worst case situations, but this is done at the expense of those listeners who have more appropriate listening environments for enjoying real world dynamic range. Those individuals pay the same amount for the same music but are penalized by the focus on the lowest common denominator. So much for artistic integrity.

Perhaps it's time for consumer level compressors. Most media players have an equalizer. Why not include a compressor too?

So you're joking, yes?

[herodotus]

I don't see less-than-ideal listening conditions as being a good deciding factor in overall loudness levels. Yes, some compression to decrease some of the dynamic range would be ideal for certain circumstances, and particularly worst case situations, but this is done at the expense of those listeners who have more appropriate listening environments for enjoying real world dynamic range. Those individuals pay the same amount for the same music but are penalized by the focus on the lowest common denominator. So much for artistic integrity.

Perhaps it's time for consumer level compressors. Most media players have an equalizer. Why not include a compressor too?

So you're joking, yes?

Why?

Think of it, eduardo, it would solve the whole problem.

In a way ReplayGain is a form of this, only relying on embedded Meta data instead of an internal gain computer as in a compressor. The ideal thing for the job would be not a standard compressor but some simplified form of Automatic Gain Control (read about them here) Hell, the album could even come from iTunes music store or wherever with suggested compressor presets for the popular media players, allowing artists to express themselves while allowing customers to customize their media, all at the same time. Get some clever software coder to do clever vintage emulations (you have to figure that if Apple went for the idea some lucky developer could enter a much bigger market than any pro audio project).

But then I suppose we would start hearing people bitch about the 'paradox of choice' and whatnot.

[eduardo_b]

Think of it, eduardo, it would solve the whole problem.

The only way for this to work would be with automation and no user controls. The file format (wav and flac, mp4 and mp3 with bit rate) would have header information that would set the device's automatic gain. Actually, only the compressed versions would need this, given that only portables and cars with portable connectors or hard drives (or SD cards) would be playing compressed, low bit files -- both noisier environments in which audio compression might be valuable. But, in practical terms, not going to happen.

[Compyfox]

I just got back from Musikmesse 2009 where I had a longer chat with Friedemann Tischmeyer, CEO of Pleasurize Music Foundation.

The conversation was very informative, however also reserved a bit. But like he said himself: "Things are never as bad as they seem."


One thing to pin down first, which was really confusing to begin with:
The DR-Metering System (or crest factor metering, as it'd be more correct) is mainly only important for engineers!

On secondary terms, it's an indicator for consumers, what the material on the CD actually is. And this is what it's all about: spreading the word, finding a way to to label overcompressed CDs, making the consumer aware of what he's listening to.




So that means for us engineers and musicians...
Musicians and producers:
...should be more aware of their song creation and mixing techniques. While I do agree that there needs to be an artistically freedom, I do not agree of putting tons of compressors/limiters into the signal chains or the master bus. A compressor for artistical "sounddesign" (if you want to call it that) is okay, even a compressor on the master bus to "mix through it". But most post-production/pre-mastering material is already provided squashed and the engineer is then asked to raise it even more.

Summary:
- Compressor on the master bus is by no means mastering
- Limiter on the Master Bus is not mastering, neither is it preventing overcompressed and lifeless material to begin with - there is a master fader for a reason(!!!), or use a leveler plugin and turn down the volume so that the maximum output peak doesn't go higher than -2dB to -1dB. But go away from using hard compression/limiting.


Engineers:
...have to take up the baton and inform both musicians and "semi-pro" engineers alike about earlier mentioned things regarding the habit of already overcompressing a track before it goes to the final mastering.

Additional to that, an engineer has to remind the musicians and the, let's call them home-studio engineers, that loud is not always better. Sure it has instant impact first, but it has no benefits for the final audience and also for radio broadcast.

Mr Tischmeyer uses the following approach in this case:

Code: Select all

 He masters all tracks with as less dynamic plugins as possible, only doing soundshaping, stereo enhancement and adding depth if needed

He calls this mastering his "best case" master (which, depending on the provided program material can even be DR-16 to DR-13)

He then offers his customers various audio examples in smaller DR-ranges for A/Bing, always with the reminder that more dynamic (or in this case a higher crest factor) benefits for the feeling of the song, since transients are still there compared to overcompressed material.

Most of the time, the customers are like "I take the louder one", but as of late, his recent experiences showed, that consumers go away from overcompressed material and actually do prefer the more dynamic engineering. And since he kept the "best case master" as first starting point (which where then "overcompressed", he can provide that engineered production again. So the learning courve is indeed there.


The consumer (aka the major base):
...has actually to do nothing at all. That's none of their concern. The DR-Metering System is sticktly made for engineers only.




THE THING WITH THE "BACKBONE-SYSTEM"
While chatting with Mr Tischmeyer, of course my idea for the K-System as backbone for the DR-Metering System came up. This part of the conversation was most heated. He said, that "a dual-logo system is only confusing the users and stuff needs to be simple for the consumers".

Over the course of the conversation, I realized that the K-System is already the backbone for the DR-Metering System. The scales fell from my eyes while I was thinking a bit closer about it, especially while taking my recent tests into consideration.

Material that is in DR-8 to DR-10 is already in K-12/AZ+4 max - which is, according to specs, still K-12, though abused. If you go higher in terms of loudness, you loose out on an RMS headroom (if you want to call it that), and the crestfactor shrinks in the process. Madonna's "Music" (track from the album with the same name) for example is in K-12 and has a DR-value of DR-9. So, this particular system is already locked to the K-System. Or if you want to look at it from another perspective, the idea of the K-System laid the foundation for the DR-Metering System.

And since it's planned that the K-Metering System will be implemented into the DR-Meters, we actually get the best of both worlds (and I theoretically need to ditch InspectorXL).


So what does that mean now? Do I need to adapt the DR-Meters and stick to them?
Yes and no.

No, because if you adapted the K-System already, and you don't go higher than K-12/AZ+2, then you'll never get higher than DR-8 with the offline metering tool (remember, the top20 reading points - so if a track has only one DR-4 mezzoforte passage, the majority of the track can still be DR-12 to DR-10, and this is what counts).

Definitely "no" if you're a producer or mixing engineer (postproduction) - it's only confusing the heck out of you.

Yes for engineers as final check for the production, and for declaring the final crest factor value for the CD backside inlay. It's a bonus meter.




BUT... THERE ARE OTHER ISSUES, NO?

The thing with the low frequency material stronger responding on the RMS meter
This is a thing that needs tons of research and a lot of funds. Over the years, this will definitely be finetuned, but for now it's working fine as is. If you want to speed up the research, donating is suggested.



What about the peak headroom adjustment?
One of the major question in my conversation, too. I brought up the thing with "if a track is already mastered properly in K-12/K-14/K-20 (or lower than K-12 at least)... what if the loudness of the album feels the same (in relation with the K-System of course) but the DR values are in ranges from DR8 to DR14 for an album - does the peak headroom need to be adjusted?"

The answer was plain and simple: "that is a good question indeed".

I mentioned the thing with auto makeup gain as implementation in conjunction with this particular phenomenon. If needed, turning up the material to a certain maximum, is always possible. Turning down is non-practical (these are my words now), since the DR-Range with Jazz material for example (wich can be in DR-12 to DR-16) was already squashed - you miss out on transients. Also implementing all that stuff into hardware is also non-practical, because the majority of the consumers will not purchase a new player just to "enjoy" the DR-System.

Thing is, that I'm still a bit puzzled regarding the "headroom adjustment". But, and this is a large but, nothing is set yet in this case and chances are, that this will dropped if you're using the K-System (as generic term in this case) anyway. Like I said, larger RMS ranges (K-14 e.g.) equals (or maybe even say "is proportional to") larger crest factor values.

So then what?!:
If you're mixing and mastering, adapt the K-System, be careful while doing postproduction, don't overshot things - and you'll be fine.



But different program material has different DR-Values. What about that?
This is where my last idea bites, and is actually something I support like the three main standards in the K-System. We need a structure of what is acceptable, yet it has to be simple as maybe FSK age codes on videogames and DVD/BlueRay movies. Only without color codes, but maybe an infosheet in the booklett or the homepage (still tossing around ideas though).

Here's my initial idea again:

Code: Select all

Program Material (the loudness standard for CD and Broadcast is set by the K-System, no alterings needed):

DR-Range Rock:
DR14 to DR8 (DR14 to DR-12 for classic rock, DR10 to DR8 max for higain rock, best if DR9)

DR-Range Pop: 
DR12 to DR8 (depending on the arrangement)

DR-Range Electronic: 
DR10 to DR8 (best if no higher than DR9 due to the bass intensive material)
more harder electronic/techno genres DR-8 as absolute maximum

DR-Range HipHop: 
DR11 to DR8 (best if no higher than DR9 due to the bass intensive material)


DR-Range Classic/Jazz: 
DR14 to DR10

DR-Range Post-Production/Pre-Mastering: 
DR20 to DR-12 - Best if not higher than DR12, depends on the program material -> no heavy compression on the master bus, for premastering the stereo render shall not be louder than -2dBFS 

Practically DR-20 is not really possible, Jazz is usually in DR-12 to DR-16 anyway (listen to elder Eric Clapton stuff, though not Jazz but Blues - then again, you get the idea).

Of course this needs a finetuning and a LOT of subgenres.
Like:
HipHop (Oldschool) - DR-14 to DR-12
HipHop (Dirty South) - DR-11 to DR-9
Techno (90ies Style) - DR-14 to DR-10
Techno (Hardtrance) - DR-10 to DR-8
etc...



Summary:
Well, I think the DR-Metering goes the right direction if you look at it globally. The consumers need to "feel" the music again rather than to hear it (Quote: Friedemann Tischmeyer). And this is what it's all about.

But to me, saying "DR-14 is a must" or "need to be provided at a minimum of DR-14" doesn't work. Neither does the peak headroom adjustment especially if you take a proper "loudness" mastering into consideration.

But, and once again this is a big but, it might just be the thing that the majority of us careful engineers needed - a group of people standing up and saying "no more! We have enough". Finally an union.



Personal Summary:
Since I already adapted the K-System and are constantly degrading it's limits (K-12/AZ+2 at the moment), the DR-Metering System is just an additional bonus. And even though I made a huge fuzz out of it, because I was indeed confused, if the little quirks regarding the stucturing and the peak headroom adjustment (which is not an issue, if you're using porper metering already) are ironed out, they have my 100% support. As of this moment, it's 98% and I'll definitely spread the word and tag my elder and future releases properly.


Enough from my side - and to quote the Governator in one of his best movies:
I need a vacation.


*no really, next two weeks I won't be able to be as active*

[kylen]

Good job on joining in, testing and taking the extra steps to stop overcompressed masters, Compyfox!

I'm having some clearer thoughts about this now but that doesn't really matter since I'm not in a commercial or wide distribution right now.

I would kinda hope that the 'powers that be' continue their observations for some more time, hold symposiums, etc befor branding CD's or watermarking streams with dynamics labels.

One of my major problems is that I just don't see how a single DR rating can successfully describe the final dynamic 'quality' of a piece of music when so many variables are involved: Individual instrument dynamics/clarity, global mix tonal balance (already mentioned by you), mix dynamics/clarity, final master dynamics/clarity.

I guess what I'm trying to say with dynamics/clarity is the differences that mix/mastering engineers, equipment quality and skill set can make on the final DR rating. For example if I use my equipment and skills to master a piece to DR8 it's going to sound pretty loud, or distorted and over-compressed, if Bob Ludwig or Bob Katz [or your fav mastering eng] does it and it's DR8 it's going to sound smooth as butter...very good in other words. Both of us rate DR8 but mine sucks!

The other thing is if just the vocals are over-compressed during mixdown (which I sometimes hate) but the master still clocks in at DR14 or whatever then what does the DR rating do for me (the consumer)? I still throw the CD in the trash, or at least glare at it forever...

Even though I still have some reservations about branding master with a DR, questions about implementation and usage, misunderstandings, etc. I still like the overall idea of getting off of over-compressed/distorted music when I want to. I'd like to be more in control as a consumer and not always be told by the producer - 'You are going to listen to my group and I'm going to present them to you as if you were standing 8 feet from the stage with a 125dbSPL level'. I'd rather have the option of hitting the saturation control on my music player and push into it myself...

I don't think this can be regulated by some moral majority though. Maybe what we need are more options, anyone remember what Todd Rungren was trying to do with optional mix criteria selected by the consumer? ...a while back

[eduardo_b]

One of my major problems is that I just don't see how a single DR rating can successfully describe the final dynamic 'quality' of a piece of music when so many variables are involved: Individual instrument dynamics/clarity, global mix tonal balance (already mentioned by you), mix dynamics/clarity, final master dynamics/clarity.

True, but the natural dynamic range of music is well known to engineers. It's not as if they can't recognize what degree of compression and limiting works for the material during mastering.

The greater issue is the mix. If mastering is the final polish, then it's the responsibility of the person doing the mixing to know, understand and implement quality standards during that process. That basically prevents audio issues with mixes when they are mastered.

The other thing is if just the vocals are over-compressed during mixdown (which I sometimes hate) but the master still clocks in at DR14 or whatever then what does the DR rating do for me (the consumer)? I still throw the CD in the trash, or at least glare at it forever...

But, again, where does the over-compression take place...in the mix. To me, the problem is that virtual hosts provide everything but instructions on what a proper mix is. With engineers in professional studios, this isn't an issue. But anyone with the money can have a DAW but virtually (oops, a pun) no experience with the basic concepts of mixing music on a multi-channel board.

I don't think this can be regulated by some moral majority though. Maybe what we need are more options, anyone remember what Todd Rungren was trying to do with optional mix criteria selected by the consumer? ...a while back

We have plenty of options. Too many, actually. The learning that takes place in studios and professional training is simply non-existent in the world of amateur/hobbyist/enthusiast music software. The tools are the easiest part. Knowing how to use them is where the difference is between what we want and what we get.

[kylen]

True, but the natural dynamic range of music is well known to engineers. It's not as if they can't recognize what degree of compression and limiting works for the material during mastering.

I agree. What I'm thinking is that given 2 different mastering engineers mastering the same piece, once each one has reached the optimal sound the actual DR number could vary quite a bit. That makes me wonder how good of a standard a DR number is?

The greater issue is the mix. If mastering is the final polish, then it's the responsibility of the person doing the mixing to know, understand and implement quality standards during that process. That basically prevents audio issues with mixes when they are mastered.

How would this work within DR framework? Would the mastering engineer bounce the material back to the mixing engineer based on DR number? I don't know if this is within the scope of DR framework or not?

[eduardo_b]

True, but the natural dynamic range of music is well known to engineers. It's not as if they can't recognize what degree of compression and limiting works for the material during mastering.

I agree. What I'm thinking is that given 2 different mastering engineers mastering the same piece, once each one has reached the optimal sound the actual DR number could vary quite a bit. That makes me wonder how good of a standard a DR number is?

Interestingly enough, it turns out that the differences among final versions when mastered by several mastering engineers are typically minimal or imperceptible. Given that the basic concepts in mastering are widely known by those who do it for a living, it turns out that they tend to make very similar assessments.

The greater issue is the mix. If mastering is the final polish, then it's the responsibility of the person doing the mixing to know, understand and implement quality standards during that process. That basically prevents audio issues with mixes when they are mastered.

How would this work within DR framework? Would the mastering engineer bounce the material back to the mixing engineer based on DR number? I don't know if this is within the scope of DR framework or not?

In practice, if the mixes are too far off, they used to be returned to the studio and mixing engineer to be revised on the basis of the notes from the mastering engineer. What has happened in the last decade is that mastering engineers get crap mixes that are already too compressed and limited and they just work with what they have. Garbage in, garbage out. Now, with a system that is agreed upon, the issue of mixes out there in crushed-land would be minimized by the adherence to levels during mixing, so the work in post would be with stereo tracks already in compliance.

[Compyfox]

I would kinda hope that the 'powers that be' continue their observations for some more time, hold symposiums, etc befor branding CD's or watermarking streams with dynamics labels.

It shined through in the conversation, that it might even not be possible until January 2011.

One of my major problems is that I just don't see how a single DR rating can successfully describe the final dynamic 'quality' of a piece of music when so many variables are involved: Individual instrument dynamics/clarity, global mix tonal balance (already mentioned by you), mix dynamics/clarity, final master dynamics/clarity.

It's not measuring the "dynamic", it's measuring the crest factor. In Short, the range between the average RMS value (loudest parts) and the highest peak. Of course it's a bit hard to set that thing clear since every music sounds different, so does every engineer - and thank god it's like that, else music would be boring. But it's not about setting rules how to make a song "as dynamic as possible" (as in form of jumps from piano to mezzoforte and back like 10 times in 20 seconds), but more like giving a general overview, how much a track is "overcompressed" in relation to the peak full scale.

Of course the better you work, the better values you get. But I tried this myself: I could create electronic tracks with pumping beat and moderate bass in K-12 and DR-12 to DR-10, but I could also create a hardcore gabber track with K-12 and DR-8. You see, the "overall loudness" also has a very important meaning in this game.

I guess what I'm trying to say with dynamics/clarity is the differences that mix/mastering engineers, equipment quality and skill set can make on the final DR rating. For example if I use my equipment and skills to master a piece to DR8 it's going to sound pretty loud, or distorted and over-compressed, if Bob Ludwig or Bob Katz [or your fav mastering eng] does it and it's DR8 it's going to sound smooth as butter...very good in other words. Both of us rate DR8 but mine sucks!

Depends on how engineers approach a mix, chances are that the DR-values are similar, but the feeling totally different. This is totally normal. Thing is however, and I have to agree with eduardo_b, since everything is advertised as "do everything yourself - in the box", it's hard nowadays for us engineers to get a decent job. It's really "crap in - crap out".

The other thing is if just the vocals are over-compressed during mixdown (which I sometimes hate) but the master still clocks in at DR14 or whatever then what does the DR rating do for me (the consumer)? I still throw the CD in the trash, or at least glare at it forever...

That's what I'd count to creative mixing, or more like "freedom of creativity". If the vocals are moderately compressed, fine. If they disort, not fine (unless wanted). It's not like that the DR-Measuring System is taking care of "one" part of the song only, but the standalone measuring tool analyzes the whole song, from this the loudest parts, and then top20 picks are analyzed that then declare the final value. Like said earlier, if a part is just for a couple of seconds in DR-5 but the rest of the song is in DR-16 to DR-14, chances are that it get's DR-14.

Then again, DR-14 with your mentioned "overcompressed vocals" is utopy, I'd more think of DR-12 to DR-10 (worst case), since voice recordings are like low frequency material (like bass and guitars) - the stronger compressed, the more dense the sound, the stronger a meter reacts. Here it depends, how clean the rest of the track was mixed. Also in relation with the general feel of the song, of course.

I agree. What I'm thinking is that given 2 different mastering engineers mastering the same piece, once each one has reached the optimal sound the actual DR number could vary quite a bit. That makes me wonder how good of a standard a DR number is?

No, it doesn't actually fluctuate that much. In tests I only lost 2dB in terms of crest factor. It depends how much compression you use, of course. But the cleaner the material, the better engineers can work with.

How would this work within DR framework? Would the mastering engineer bounce the material back to the mixing engineer based on DR number? I don't know if this is within the scope of DR framework or not?

The DR number is not relevant before mastering. Forget this thing while recording, composing and mixing. Hands off, totally! If you want meters, use peak meters, don't overshoot your individual channels, hands off on a (master-)compressor in the master bus, turn down the volume slider to regain your peak headroom. This is the best thing that you can do - nothing's working any better.

Only mastering engineers need to work and stick with it. The "general userbase" doesn't need to know so to say. And if in doubt, give the finished track to us for engineering. I mean, this is what we engineers are there for after all. It's still a common mistake to believe, that you can do everything yourself engineering wise, which started all this mess in the first place.

I guess it's about time to say again "I reject this mix, please go back to it", even though you might miss out on jobs. Only this way people can learn it the right way.




*last post from me for the next two weeks regarding this issue - sorry folks. I'm out of town, try to get an eye in here from time to time, but I won't promise anything*

[kylen]

Interestingly enough, it turns out that the differences among final versions when mastered by several mastering engineers are typically minimal or imperceptible. Given that the basic concepts in mastering are widely known by those who do it for a living, it turns out that they tend to make very similar assessments.

OK - I'll have to agree to disagree with you and Compy on this one. Given the examples I have of Bob Katz and Bob Ludwig I can't imagine the DR numbers/crest to be anywhere close for the same genre - however in many cases each have mastered works that are very enjoyable to listen to. That prompts my question of the standard and it's semantics. I'll do some measuring some time when I get a chance - if I'm way off on this I'll come back in and report it.

Anyway - here's to non-fatiguing recordings and reproduction...