K system metering standard

[otison]

I read with great interest the article in the march Webzine about Bob Katz's metering standard, and also that it'll be soon part of the Precision Limiter.

great !

now the questions, if anyone can help one these it'd be great :

1/

on the article, there are 3 screenshots of the upcoming PL, one for each metering standard. my question is, will the amount of compression change upon switching from a metering standard to another ? or is this just a pure metering trick, and therefore will NOT interact whatsoever with the other settings of the plugin ?
I'm asking this because those 3 screenshots are quite misleading the sense that they show different threshold settings for the limiter...

2/

When is 4.2 release date scheduled for ? 29th April ?

 

[secretworld]

my question is, will the amount of compression change upon switching from a metering standard to another ?

No, the K sysyem of monitoring is part of Bobs mission the get dynamic back into the music. It´s there to help you decide how much (or even better how little :wink: ) limiting you want to aply.

 

[MASSIVE Mastering]

I'm thrilled of the hope that dynamics will return...

I'm thrilled that UAD is adopting a metering system... =D>

I'm thrilled that it's Bob's system... \/

I'm depressed that much of the industry needs a freaking metering system to tell them that they're wrecking their music. You'd think they never listened to it! #-o

 

[sj_digriz]

You'd think they never listened to it! #-o

It's their job to sell it, not listen to it. :evil:

 

[GerhardS]

I'm thrilled of the hope that dynamics will return...

I'm thrilled that UAD is adopting a metering system... =D>

I'm thrilled that it's Bob's system... \/

I'm depressed that much of the industry needs a freaking metering system to tell them that they're wrecking their music. You'd think they never listened to it! #-o

Thanks John,
standing ovations...
br
Gerhard

 

[Plec]

Yes, I agree it's all good with the K-Metering. It's very useful to mix with IMO. If you do a mix with the K-20 system and it's supposed to be a K-12, you might have to do a lot of tweaking in mastering to get it to sit at that level comfortably, but if you start out with K-12 as your set monitoring loudness you engineer all the sounds to fit into that dynamic range from the beginning which makes mastering a whole lot easier and better sounding if you still want to push the level in the end 'cause you've already taken care of a lot of the transient peaks. 83dbSPL is what many people consider to be the \"comfortable listening loudness\". It's where the ear has the most even frequency response. So the K-20 means you will have to monitor pretty loud, so when you push up a fader to get a sound into the \"comfortable level zone\" you don't have to push it up that far which in turn means you keep the dynamics intact. As for the K-12 system you will monitor at a lot more modest level which means that the fader you were pushing earlier has to be pushed quite a bit more to get it into the zone of comfortable level and if this sound is very dynamic it will distort at some point because you pushed it to far, so you have to compress it in order to keep everything intact.

But PLEASE don't neglect the fact that for some genres it's absolutley appropriate to have it sit between -10 and -8dbFS RMS. Even if the K-system is a great help you still have to use your ears once in a while and forget all the hype (read MILAR 8) ). IMHO I think that digital, harsh distorsion has the same artistic value as tube/tape distorsion if used in the right context.

 

[rdolmat]

But PLEASE don't neglect the fact that for some genres it's absolutley appropriate to have it sit between -10 and -8dbFS RMS.

:?

dbFS RMS? -8 dB RMS? I've never heard anything that loud in my life!

Are you sure RMS? and not just -8dBFS?

 

[Plec]

No... I mean -8dbFS RMS. What's so strange about that? Most albums I listen to that are in the \"supposed to be very loud\"-league sits at -10dBFS RMS at least. A couple even at -6dBFS RMS.. but even I think that's really pushing it though, but it's still very cool for those particular programs.

RMS=Root Mean Square... what's odd about that?

-8dbFS doesn't tell you much about loudness

 

[rdolmat]

No... I mean -8dbFS RMS. What's so strange about that? Most albums I listen to that are in the "supposed to be very loud"-league sits at -10dBFS RMS at least. A couple even at -6dBFS RMS.. but even I think that's really pushing it though, but it's still very cool for those particular programs.

RMS=Root Mean Square... what's odd about that?

-8dbFS doesn't tell you much about loudness

I always thought dBFS was peak on a digital scale, and RMS was average. It is the FS that is confusing me. I didn't know you can have peak and RMS in one level (meaning absolutely no crest factor).

 

[GerhardS]

No... I mean -8dbFS RMS. What's so strange about that? Most albums I listen to that are in the "supposed to be very loud"-league sits at -10dBFS RMS at least. A couple even at -6dBFS RMS.. but even I think that's really pushing it though, but it's still very cool for those particular programs.
...

What is -8 dBFS RMS ? Either its dbFS which means peak values or its RMS which means Root Mean Square or did I miss something ?

Can you hear dBFS ? I can't ... I can see -6dBFS on my meters even if my monitors are switched off.

br
gerhard

 

[cmw9001]

IMO, it's a good support for excellent mixes but current loudness trend have save lots okay mixes to sound like good mixes, help tighten and open :roll: to my ears it's not really a bad thing, as i like the tightness and openess with heavy compression than stuff before 1995
to me life is all about like and dislike, no right or wrong
oh, as for Bob Katz's mastering book... well... full of hate and anger... a bit hard for me to read :?
maybe i will change my mind when loud music start to hurt me ears or maybe when start to i gain more pleasure in high dyamic audios, my desier for current trend will reduce

 

[DAWgEAR]

Nothing inconsistent with \"dBFS RMS\", TTBOMK.

FS (full scale) is the scale used in the digital domain. There are other decibel scales: VU, dBu, SPL ...

FS is like Farenheit whereas dBu might be Celsius (just an analogy).

Peak on a dBFS scale is the peak reading. RMS on a dBFS scale is the average. A signal can peak at -1 dBFS while the RMS average sits at -12 dBFS.

At least that's my understanding.

 

[MASSIVE Mastering]

That essentially it. If you were using a VU meter, you're looking at 0dBVU-RMS (about the same as -18dBFS-RMS... Which I only WISH we'd go back to as the norm, but I digress).

Hell, I just stopped myself from using \"Ks/s\" all the time - I guess iit tends to confuse people. \"kHz\" still confuses ME half the time (HALF the time - Get it?!?).

 

[brian]

It really is too bad that people need this kind of meter to let them know everything is too loud....however all this standardized metering will have to be re-thought when I release my latest findings to AES: through black magic and extreme drug abuse I have discovered a way to exceed the 0dBfs limit by up to +6dB and still have a CD master that can be duplicated and reproduced without errors or clipping.

 

[MASSIVE Mastering]

See, the problem is that's proprietary - People listening need to be using the same drugs and evil spells to hear it properly. Otherwise, it just sounds like the theme from Frasier.

 

[brian]

See, the problem is that's proprietary - People listening need to be using the same drugs and evil spells to hear it properly.

That's a good point...although you can still observe most of the impossible gain (+3 or 4 dB above 0dBFS) by eating 6 boxes of Twinkies within a 1 hour period and reading a Dr. Seuss book backwards in as deep a voice as possible. This is probably more feasible for most people who might be afraid of combining more traditional drugs & magic.

Otherwise, it just sounds like the theme from Frasier.

:lol: :!:

 

[Plec]

I really like the fact of standardized metering. I've been using the K-System for a little more than a year now, and for me it's become a lot easier to work on a project basis and I also get a lot more consistent results. As I said before... If you do a mix while monitoring loud and you do the mix at a \"comfortable level\" you're going to have a lot more dynamics in there.. and if your goal is to have it quite compressed in the end you end up needing to adress stuff on the two-track that you could've easily fixed in the mix... just to get level.

The real challenge.. that makes it a lot of fun and very educating is to do a mix with the K-12 setting and engineer it without compression or limiting on the master bus and to avoid overs at the same time. Everyone can do it at K-20, it's challenging at K-14, and K-12 is very very hard!!

 

[Giles117 DP]

Nah it's easy, it's called control

 

[Plec]

Nah it's easy, it's called control

:lol:

 

[unconscious sound]

Hi, everyone. I guess this would be a good place to post this. I have a stereo setup with 2 Mackie HR624's. I'm trying to set up my system for the K-System specs.

I have the Precision Limiter (which I now see supports all three K-System meters), an Audiophile 2496 card, a Behringer MX-602a mixer (for monitor attenuation), and my Mackie HR624 switches on the back are all set to normal, except the attenuation dials, which are set to the 9 O'clock position (somewhere under 10dB...not sure exactly).

I don't have an SPL meter, or a Real-Time Analyzer, as Bob recommends having. Has anyone else set up their HR624's to the K-System? (stereo setup, without a sub).

Thanks in advance,
Mike