I've read a lot on the web about the K-system of monitoring, metering and mixing/mastering. The K-system basically attempts to ensure that a finished song has at least 12dB of RMS headroom, right? So that the song sounds dynamic and lively, as opposed to squished, loud and generally Mastered for !tunes. Also, the monitoring systems ensure that the engineers who work on the song have a lot of headroom to work in, so that a mix is dynamically varied and rich. Now picture this: someone walking in a park, wearing a pair of Beats audio or Bose earphones and listening to music. His volume is fixed to a level at which his current favorite squished song sounds perfect. Now he switches to a song that has been produced using the dynamic principles of K-system metering and monitoring. He will immediately notice a level drop, get irritated, and whip out his iPod or whatever and push the volume up a number of decibels to reach the same level. On his headphones, the carefully crafted three-dimensional mix with great sonic depth will sound frustratingly soft, messy and blurred. It's highly probable that he doesn't think too highly of the mix. Which is what I don't understand about the K-system. I have absolutely nothing against the K-system. Or Bob Katz. he's a great guy and I respect his ideals. I'm not trying to point out a mistake here. I'm just wondering. For what it's worth, I try to make my mixes dynamic and deep too, as opposed to brickwalled to death. But when I think of this scenario, I get confused. I've been asked more than once why my songs aren't loud, or why my songs sound like they're poorly recorded(it hasn't got anything to do with the recordings themselves - it's just that when people hear something that isn't loud enough they think the recordings must have been of inferior "quality"). All opinions are welcome!