KVR Audio

Compyfox · Post by **Compyfox** » Wed Mar 25, 2009 2:26 am

Then I'm all for the K-System/DR-System dual logo.

K-System for the loudness setting (K-20 for full dynamic, K-14 for CD production, K-12 still for broadcast "whitelabels")

DR-System for additional info what your ears might have to take (which will slowly move back from DR-4/DR-6 to DR-8 to DR-10 if labels and engineers alike adapt K-14/AZ+4 = K-12/AZ+2 max)

Again, best of both worlds.

It's like a Dolby Digital EX+ Logo on a DVD/BlueRay, or a MLP Logo on an audio DVD, only with less license costs since it's (thank god) free of charge.

P.T. · Post by **P.T.** » Wed Mar 25, 2009 2:41 am

eduardo_b wrote:
P.T. wrote:A system that demands a certain minimum dynamic range for music is out of the question to me.

Dynamic range is an artistic decision.

I don't like the current smashed to the point of distortion mastering, but I am completely against mandated dynamic range standards.
I understand your point about artistic decisions, but I don't think this qualifies. It's just like the RIAA equalization curve. It serves a purpose beyond where artistic decisions get made. It's about audio quality standards, within which artistic decisions can be made while giving listeners the opportunity and right to hear the music without ear fatigue and half the dynamic range.

I suppose i depends on what is meant by dynamics.
If it means volume differences between moments in a song then a standard is a problem.
Are they saying that a heavy metal tune has to have quieter and louder parts?
What if the band wants everything banging at a constant volume level without any softer hits/strums mixed in with the loud ones?

It is possible to have a song with constant, unvarying levels and for it to still not be smashed and maximized into distortion.
Where would a song like this end up on their new dynamics scale?
Why not a tune with even , non-dynamics, with natural peaks just under 0db and an RMS value of 16-14?

eduardo_b · Post by **eduardo_b** » Wed Mar 25, 2009 3:08 am

P.T. wrote:It is possible to have a song with constant, unvarying levels and for it to still not be smashed and maximized into distortion.
Where would a song like this end up on their new dynamics scale?

Doesn't this assume that certain genres have little or no dynamic range on every song on an album? What was metal like before the loudness wars? It had more dynamic range then, yet it didn't suffer from this, and likely was even better for it.

tattiemannie · Post by **tattiemannie** » Wed Mar 25, 2009 3:25 am

You're absolutely right eduardo_b ... listen to Led Zep's early stuff. gets right down to hihat and voice at times .... but is it any less powerful? I think not!

Cordelia · Post by **Cordelia** » Wed Mar 25, 2009 3:28 am

eduardo_b wrote:
P.T. wrote:It is possible to have a song with constant, unvarying levels and for it to still not be smashed and maximized into distortion.
Where would a song like this end up on their new dynamics scale?
Doesn't this assume that certain genres have little or no dynamic range on every song on an album? What was metal like before the loudness wars? It had more dynamic range then, yet it didn't suffer from this, and likely was even better for it.

No, this new system doesn't take into account songs with different dynamic ranges on one CD. If you had only one song on a CD with a DR8 rating, the entire CD would be reduced in level by 6dB.
It doesn't take into account music that is non traditional, either. What is the proper dynamic range for a CD of metallic percussive hits?
I don't have any issue with a labeling system, really, although it's backward thinking and probably as futile as the PMRC labels, but I do take issue with the idea of altering the levels of CDs before pressing to conform to this standard.

P.T. · Post by **P.T.** » Wed Mar 25, 2009 3:52 am

eduardo_b

"P.T. wrote:
It is possible to have a song with constant, unvarying levels and for it to still not be smashed and maximized into distortion.
Where would a song like this end up on their new dynamics scale?"
_____________

Doesn't this assume that certain genres have little or no dynamic range on every song on an album? What was metal like before the loudness wars? It had more dynamic range then, yet it didn't suffer from this, and likely was even better for it.
^ Joined: 23 Nov 2004 Member: #48909 Location: west of east

tattiemannie
KVRian
- profile
- pm
- e-mail
- mute me

New postPosted: Wed Mar 25, 2009 3:25 am

You're absolutely right eduardo_b ... listen to Led Zep's early stuff. gets right down to hihat and voice at times .... but is it any less powerful? I think not!

______________

But now you are getting down to artistic choices and that should not be part of an industry system.

Sorry, I don't know how to respond to multilpe Quotes.

Hink · Post by **Hink** » Wed Mar 25, 2009 3:53 am

tattiemannie wrote:You're absolutely right eduardo_b ... listen to Led Zep's early stuff. gets right down to hihat and voice at times .... but is it any less powerful? I think not!

actually going strictly by your word "Powerful" I would say early zep or any other band from that time is going to sound less powerful. Sound that is, not feel. If you're looking for a powerful sound than the noise floor imo is what makes the difference. It's far easier these days to emphasize the bass and have much better control of the bass than in analog recordings of yor. Bass brings power, just my opinion though...

Shy · Post by **Shy** » Wed Mar 25, 2009 4:30 am

Cordelia wrote:I don't have any issue with a labeling system, really, although it's backward thinking and probably as futile as the PMRC labels, but I do take issue with the idea of altering the levels of CDs before pressing to conform to this standard.

That's exactly what I'm thinking and it's the most important point in all of this nonsense. If this gets accepted as a standard, it will be abused. People won't really start following restrictive, prejudiced "loudness"/"dynamic range" per track rules, everyone could claim they conform to this standard by changing levels of whole mixes, and you and no one will be able to "prove" they did or didn't mix in a certain way (that's just ridiculous), and it would all "achieve" nothing because mixes could still sound like crap and there will never be anything you can do about it.

If people want good quality mixes, they should listen to good quality music, which is everywhere. If there's a song you would like to hear unmutilated and can't, tough luck for you, then tell that to the artist. Heck, I'm drowning in fantastic sounding mixes which are not in any way disgustingly squashed and fatiguing. I wish I had more time to dedicate to them. Pop and music for the "masses" may sound good and it may sound terrible, and so can "indie" or music that isn't nearly as "popular". If you don't like how a song sounds, then I suggest you don't listen to it.

This narrow-minded idea of a standard is especially narrow minded considering it's intended to be imposed on material as incredibly diverse as -music-, an art form with infinite variability shared among countless cultures worldwide. If you think anyone should impose such a system and force people to conform to it by establishing a universal product labeling system (which is a major thing), you have a problem.

While there can be benefits to a metering system such as this for some artists, it offers nothing for artists who prefer to ignore it and use another "system" (which may be just or mostly their ears). It may also result in preferable results for some listeners, but you know, some won't like that at all, and even hate it. Going so far as to label music albums with a logo that indicates claimed conformity to a standard which is inherently incompatible and lacking regarding the very content it intends to standardize (music...), is insane. And if you belittle the significance of this issue ("you don't have to conform", etc.), then you have no idea whatsoever how much damage standard product labeling can cause.

herodotus · Post by **herodotus** » Wed Mar 25, 2009 4:52 am

Shy wrote: While there can be benefits to a metering system such as this for some artists, it offers nothing for artists who prefer to ignore it and use another "system" (which may be just or mostly their ears). It may also result in preferable results for some listeners, but you know, some won't like that at all, and even hate it. Going so far as to label music albums with a logo that indicates claimed conformity to a standard which is inherently incompatible and lacking regarding the very content it intends to standardize (music...), is insane. And if you belittle the significance of this issue ("you don't have to conform", etc.), then you have no idea whatsoever how much damage standard product labeling can cause.

This thing doesn't have to be any more harmful than an ingredients label on food.

I don't think any government should mandate it, but there is absolutely no danger of anything like that happening.

Clearly the 'Pleasurize Music Foundation' doesn't like squashed recordings, but let's say that someone else does. Why not wear the DR4 as a badge of honor? This will let people know that your song will sound loud on even the crappiest earbuds (for those who want that) while letting others know that it is twice as squashed as Slayer's Reign in Blood (for those who don't want that).

I really don't see why this is pissing people off so much. It won't lead to anything unless all of the major players in the industry decide that it is in their interest, which doesn't seem at all likely to happen.

It might even lead to greater consumer choice, with different versions of albums in varied formats. Which, to be fair, also seems unlikely to happen.

tony tony chopper · Post by **tony tony chopper** » Wed Mar 25, 2009 4:54 am

148. Wave Candy: added new metering modes for loudness visualization.

Usually i don't go jumping from thread to thread asking the same question:
i've seen this news on Hosts forum so I've already asked there.
BUT, since it seems to me that's related to the general loudness-metering subject discussed here, i'd really like to know from the "Guru" about it.

In the latest beta, Wave Candy features PPM/RMS/Vu/LeqA/BS.1770 metering.

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? It has always been a poorman's (simple & cheap CPU-wise) way to roughly measure it, but it's not very good.
So instead of arguing about how much offset the labels on a meter should be (it really is what this K-thing is about), isn't it more important to pick/agree on the best loudness metering that exists, or do a new one?
You can agree on how to offset a meter, but if the meter itself is broken..

Do you know what this stuff is about? Leq(A), Leq(RLB2), ITU BS.1770?
It's all about years of serious analysis, hard stuff in search of the best algorithms for the more effective loudness measurement

I'd like to believe that, but look, I can get LeqA & BS.1770 to 'agree' on the loudness of some signal, and then for another signal they're 15dB apart. Mmmh, I know that loudness perception is subjective, but 15dB apart?
Make an algo that auto-gains or does something else critical (compression) according to that, and 15dB is not a detail.
To my ears (and it's of course not just subjective but also depends on the playback device (speakers)), LeqA looks more 'accurate'.

Cordelia · Post by **Cordelia** » Wed Mar 25, 2009 4:55 am

I enjoyed that post, Shy.
Record companies are huge corporations. My god-daughter distrusts them as much as she distrusts Exxon. I can see the backlash from here. DR2 will become a badge of honor.

Shy · Post by **Shy** » Wed Mar 25, 2009 5:00 am

herodotus: if you want your music to be labeled by a restricted, prejudiced system that obviously can't work well for most of the content it intends to standardize, and be judged and very possibly dissed due to that label, have fun. I see no reason to conform to such a ridiculous system. If this is standardized, you will be -forced- to conform (unlabeled product = inferior, whether you like it or not). People are so pissed because of it because of the simple reason they don't like people who have no right doing that categorizing them under groups (example: "atheist").

Cordelia · Post by **Cordelia** » Wed Mar 25, 2009 5:17 am

herodotus wrote:This thing doesn't have to be any more harmful than an ingredients label on food.

I don't think any government should mandate it, but there is absolutely no danger of anything like that happening.

Clearly the 'Pleasurize Music Foundation' doesn't like squashed recordings, but let's say that someone else does. Why not wear the DR4 as a badge of honor? This will let people know that your song will sound loud on even the crappiest earbuds (for those who want that) while letting others know that it is twice as squashed as Slayer's Reign in Blood (for those who don't want that).

I really don't see why this is pissing people off so much. It won't lead to anything unless all of the major players in the industry decide that it is in their interest, which doesn't seem at all likely to happen.

It might even lead to greater consumer choice, with different versions of albums in varied formats. Which, to be fair, also seems unlikely to happen.

I agree that there's a snowball's chance in hell of this system being adopted by major labels, unless they imagine that remastering all the oldies with a "New! Greater dynamic range!" sticker will get the public to re-buy their CD collection.

But, if you read the literature and read through the posts you'll see that the proposal includes changing the levels of mastered materials to conform to their standards which is what is upsetting and frankly, just won't work.

So, to use your analogy, it would be like deciding that all food must have 100 grams of fat or it just doesn't taste good, opening the packaged foods, adding the fat, and repackaging with a "now properly fatted" label.

eduardo_b · Post by **eduardo_b** » Wed Mar 25, 2009 6:25 am

Well, if loudness that is fatiguing and sounds like crap is artistic freedom, that doesn't prevent a rational system of standards, the sole purpose of which is to avoid this kind of "loudness is better" foolishness. I just don't see how improved audio quality can be a problem in comparison to the 0 dB, four octave results of this obsession with loudness. Anyone with sufficient skill won't have artistic freedom issues with moderately reduced loudness and increased dynamic range.

Cordelia · Post by **Cordelia** » Wed Mar 25, 2009 6:58 am

eduardo_b wrote:Well, if loudness that is fatiguing and sounds like crap is artistic freedom, that doesn't prevent a rational system of standards, the sole purpose of which is to avoid this kind of "loudness is better" foolishness. I just don't see how improved audio quality can be a problem in comparison to the 0 dB, four octave results of this obsession with loudness. Anyone with sufficient skill won't have artistic freedom issues with moderately reduced loudness and increased dynamic range.

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. Under this proposal, my entire CD would be brought down by 6dB which would make the quiet ballad difficult to hear under all kinds of listening conditions- CD shuffle, iPods.

These are artistic choices. There are a lot of great sounding CDs being released all the time, not everything is squashed these days. We hear the news about the worst offenders.

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.

K-Meters are now "Dynamic Range Meters"?