I like most people think it is a guide and you can chose to use it or not.

My basic premise is that you are making comments about someone's ideas and not letting them have their say.

If you chose to use the K-System or not is entirely up to you.

My personal opinion is that it is a good system for keeping consistent levels in my mastering and I am glad he came up with the concept. Does it make decisions for me - OF COURSE NOT!

I use it to help me do the best possible job with levels which is what most people are concerned about today.

How about leaving the person out of the question and just concentrate on the system. That way it can't be mistaken as personal.

Ok, I think it can be a pretty good system if it is used and enforced. Smashed material can be played, it'll just be brought in line with other material to meet a level requirement. Basically the same thing that the film industry does. There is no technical reason why the film industry continues to pretty much follow the guidlines they used when film had it's limits. Thankfully most have kept the levels somewhat under control although more and more DVD's are starting to creep up there in volume. But the ones that do still follow the basic guidelines don't hinder the enjoyment of the film. And when you kick it off and turn on the tv, it's pretty much in the same ballpark level wise.

Thomas W. Bethel wrote:

My basic premise is that you are making comments about someone's ideas and not letting them have their say.

This, then, is an incorrect premise. This is a public forum. Comments about audio and the tools of its creation are discussed. How is it, that in order to make a challenge to a proposed standard, I must seek out the originator of that standard and pester him with my half-baked problems? He is perfectly free to rebut my comments if he sees fit.

To take your suggestion as valid, would require such a magnificent reorganization of the entire world, that it would be breathtaking.

Tell you what. Don't you EVER say anything again about, say, microphones that work better in certain situations (thereby implying that certain microphones are BAD in certain situations), without duly copying the memo to the manufacturers in question. That's your responsibility, otherwise its just backstabbing. (see how incorrect that sounds?)

I'm just asking a question. IS it social engineering, an aesthetic standard, or isn't it? Bob Katz KNOWS it is. WHat do you think?

You seem unable to answer that basic question. The answer of course, is that it IS an aesthetic standard. A priori.

The REAL question then becomes, is having aesthetic standards imposed on music production a good thing?

If you chose to use the K-System or not is entirely up to you.

if its my "choice" today, but becomes my responsibility tomorrow, is that a good thing?

again, is having imposed aesthetic standards a good thing? When the industry rejects your masters because RMS level isn't between A and B, peak levels aren't between C and D, crest factor isn't between E and F, and the client is witholding payment because they've missed their slot for pre-christmas airplay, because they think its outside K system params?

"gee, I thought it sounded pretty good, but according to the K system, it didn't ".

It isn't too far away before we hear statements like that from mooks and clients.

You ok with that? Or, if you think that premise is unfounded, WHY do you think it is? When people become "educated" about the K system, I think they'll start whacking us over the head with it, instead of ACTUALLY understanding what it's supposed to accomplish.

My personal opinion is that it is a good system for keeping consistent levels in my mastering and I am glad he came up with the concept. Does it make decisions for me - OF COURSE NOT!

I use it to help me do the best possible job with levels which is what most people are concerned about today.

au contraire, it DOES make decisions for you.

Maybe that's ok! Maybe that's the answer that comes out of the debate!

A debate means, you interact, you dissect the assertion being made, and find the answer that logically makes the assertion untenable. Simply dismissing the assertion is what we know as an INADEQUATE DEFENSE.

Again, is it an attempt at social engineering, or is it not? WHy not?

I have another prediction.

If the K system takes off, then you'll immediately see "k system" mastering plugs available that will be marketed as REPLACING mastering...

Since mastering will no longer incorporate any aesthetic decisions, and become simply a process of bringing a track in compliance with the standards, then the bottom 2/3 of the mastering industry will be evaporated.

There will, of course, always be work for the big boys.....like, for example...STERLING.

HEHEHEHEHEHEHEHEHE

dwoz

Michael Fossenkemper wrote: There is no technical reason why the film industry continues to pretty much follow the guidlines they used when film had it's limits.

I beg to differ. I think the reasons for those standards are very much alive.

They're the people who go sit in theaters.

When you're playing a movie for an audience, you have to set A SINGLE LEVEL that is satisfactory for a ROOMFUL of people. Can't have it too loud, or 1/3 of them are going to complain. Can't have it too soft, or 1/2 of them are going to complain. Never mind that 1/6 of them complain no matter what...we can safely ignore that group.

Again, if you could somehow give each person their own personal level control, then the standard would be gone before the very next picture got released.

dwoz

DWOZ,

This discussion is going no where fast.

You are either a troll or have an ax to grind.

So here is my final comment...Whatever!

Well, your K meter may be well calibrated, but your troll meter is way off.

If you were able to answer my question, you'd be able to answer when a client asks "why does K system make you better than the NEXT GUY...who isn't charging $85/hour?"

The only justification that I've heard for it is that Bob Katz did it. Maybe we should put him on a cheerios box. He could take Bode Miller's box...

Sorry, my dear Thom... I'm not fit to lick Bob Katz boots behind a mastering desk, but Ideas have to stand on their own. They're ALL fair game.

So...is it an aesthetic standard?

dwoz

dwoz wrote:
So...is it an aesthetic standard?

You can't really mean that can you? How exactly does defining a sensible RMS level restrict your creative freedom?

dwoz wrote: "why does K system make you better than the NEXT GUY...who isn't charging $85/hour?"

My mixes now have consistent RMS levels, which means that when I lay out tracks for a CD they fit together properly without further adjustment.

Bob Katz wrote: Using the Meter's Red Zone. This 88-90 dB+ region is used in films for explosions and special effects. In music recording, naturally-recorded (uncompressed) large symphonic ensembles and big bands reach +3 to +4 dB on the average scale on the loudest (fortissimo) passages. Rock and electric pop music take advantage of this "loud zone", since climaxes, loud choruses and occasional peak moments sound incorrect if they only reach 0dB (forte) on any K-system meter.

The K-system still allows you the freedom to define which bits are "fortissimo" and which are merely "forte". Thats the aesthetic decision, not the definition of the scale itself.

maybe Bob's just trying to save our hearing.

Pardon?

Ok, IIrs, now we're starting to get somewhere.

You can't really mean that can you? How exactly does defining a sensible RMS level restrict your creative freedom?

I know this is gong to sound like nit-picky parsing to you, but I know by your inclusion of the word "sensible" in that sentence.

"sensible" could probably mean "levels that serve a musical purpose, and which are within a certain range, that 95% of all the music falls within".

By its definition, it means to exclude RMS levels that "don't serve a musical purpose, and which are louder than other music by a good measure".

So, however wide you define "sensible", there will be some levels that should be disallowed. This to me, is much like saying, "you should only paint a picture using these 7 specific paint colors, because all other colors you may use can be mixed from these.

The K-system still allows you the freedom to define which bits are "fortissimo" and which are merely "forte". Thats the aesthetic decision, not the definition of the scale itself.

Ahh, but I've already read you blokes bandying about terms like "its at +6, K-14". You're already pegging specific characterizations to specific numbers.

Although I do begin to see the point. If radio adopts this K system as a standard for music broadcast, then they'll say to you, "go ahead and pancake your mix up into the top 2 bits...we're just gonna normalize it down into K system conformance (i.e. remaster it for you) for broadcast...

This will result in some genres of music needing TWO mastering passes...one for CD replication, where the loud, angry rock 'n roll can be made as loud and angry as it wannabe, and the second master, which drops it into K system conformance, for airplay.

Now, my next question. Will this result in "better" more dynamic mixes coming off mastering desks, or will we just have squashed mixes "normalized" down to -6dbFS? Remember, "K system conformance" will "normalize" rms level, peak level, and crest factor...

I can see how it would eliminate some of the "mutually assured destruction" of having to wiggle the last bit all the time, just to sound like you're on the same radio station, because the OTHER GUY does it...

Your thoughts?

dwoz

dwoz wrote: This to me, is much like saying, "you should only paint a picture using these 7 specific paint colors, because all other colors you may use can be mixed from these.

I totally disagree, it doesn't restrict your tonal pallete at all and this thread demonstrates how much it is needed..

Katz has simply attempted to define standard RMS levels for "forte" and "fortissimo".. this is analagous to defining rough BPM values for "Andante" or "Largo".. I never heard anyone complain that the markings on their metronome restrict their creative freedom to set the correct tempo!

Most cities and states have speed limits for the good of all concerned. However very seldom do I see drivers obeying those speed limits even though they could get a hefty fine for not doing so.

Bob Katz's system is a suggestion. It is not law. I worked in broadcasting for a number of years early in my career as an audio engineer. At that time there were no "standards" for broadcast audio. It was a mess but finally got sorted out with "standards". They same type of "standards" apply to the motion picture audio tracks and if some theater wants to get their THX certification they have to meet even stricter standards. Even though these "standards" exist in broadcasting and motion picture sound they still have volume controls on the reproduction side and I have been in theaters were my ears were bloodied by the end of the film and if you look at the output of a television station you will see that they have about a +3 to 6 dBu differenence between program audio and commercials. So not everyone abides by "standards" and I guess that is the American way.

Best of luck don Quoite (dwoz) on your windmill quest.

dwoz,

You might also want to read this
http://www.uaudio.com/webzine/2006/march/index.html

dwoz wrote:
If you were able to answer my question, you'd be able to answer when a client asks "why does K system make you better than the NEXT GUY...who isn't charging $85/hour?"

The only justification that I've heard for it is that Bob Katz did it.

Wow, this conversation has taken a wonderful turn for the crapper.

Dwoz - I sometimes get the impression that you like to stir the pot enough to piss people off, but not come off as too much of a dick. No insult intended, take it for what it's worth.

First - I don't think Bob's idea is one that's written in stone. In fact, you'll notice after reading his information re: the K-System that K12, K14, and K20 are merely his suggestions.

The idea is a constant monitoring environment leveraging the Fletcher Munson curve to help maintain a good peak to rms range. There are so many positive attributes to this idea, I don't understand any capacity for negativity.

Second - a constant monitoring level is a must. Perhaps it simply helps me in my rather infant state of mastering proficiency, but it IS a significant aid to me. Rather than relying on meters and charts, I can simply dial in what sounds right and since the level hasn't changed, I'm confident that it will sound right elsewhere. It really is that simple.

K system isn't just a setting on meters (which I often avoid anyway) - it's an idea on how to set your levels for constant level monitoring. In my book, this is a smart idea. If you don't like the immortalization of Mr. Katz by the simple naming convention, then change the levels to -13 dBfs or -15dBfs and refer to it as dwoz15 or dwoz13 scale. The fact is, it will still work and work well at that.

J.

Cucco wrote: [quote=dwoz]
If you were able to answer my question, you'd be able to answer when a client asks "why does K system make you better than the NEXT GUY...who isn't charging $85/hour?"

The only justification that I've heard for it is that Bob Katz did it.

Wow, this conversation has taken a wonderful turn for the crapper.

Dwoz - I sometimes get the impression that you like to stir the pot enough to piss people off, but not come off as too much of a dick. No insult intended, take it for what it's worth.
au contraire, mon freher. Its only just now starting to get good. 5 pages of whinging and moaning about the loudness wars...empty calories. Like eating CocoPuffs.

Now there's a big slice of red meat on the plate. yum.

Here's what it is, Cucco. A lot of lurkers on boards like this would hear Bob Katz/G. Massenburg/B. Swieden/ or even the father of british EQ Himself, espouse some proclaimation about something, and they'd all dutifully kiss the ring, and buy/implement/install whatever it was that the Holy See suggested.

Without knowing WHAT it was, What PROBLEM did it solve, WHY is this better than what you're doing now.

WHAT DOES IT REALLY MEAN when I see the K-system calibrated Dorrough meter doing that particular little thing? What is that REALLY TELLING ME?

Lots of folks would simply not be able to formulate a coherent answer.

Have you ever been to a meeting in a school, where a Doctoral Thesis is presented? Its very adversarial. A tablefull of grouchy folks tear your pretty little thesis to SHREDS, to BITS, and you have to stand there and defend it. Ever applied for a patent? Very similar in many respects, although the timeframe doesn't make for good reality TV.

We learn some interesting things in those kinds of exchanges. For example, I learn that if I'm having trouble level-matching things, a K system setup would be a possible tool to solve that problem. I also learned that it isn't uncommon for Mastering Engineers to view their work as vocational/craftsmanship, as compared to creative/artistic.

I'm sure some other folks learned something as well. Stuff we didn't learn when the only thing going on was some mutual smoke-blowing.

Refreshing, ain't it?

First - I don't think Bob's idea is one that's written in stone. In fact, you'll notice after reading his information re: the K-System that K12, K14, and K20 are merely his suggestions.

Meter systems manufacturers are licensing the K system for their meters. Not cast in stone? cast in silicon, perhaps. Is silicon a kind of stone?

The idea is a constant monitoring environment leveraging the Fletcher Munson curve to help maintain a good peak to rms range. There are so many positive attributes to this idea, I don't understand any capacity for negativity.

well...you know...paving on the road to hell, and all that. Placing something in an adversarial point of view is a valuable way to discover it anew.
[quote

Second - a constant monitoring level is a must. Perhaps it simply helps me in my rather infant state of mastering proficiency, but it IS a significant aid to me. Rather than relying on meters and charts, I can simply dial in what sounds right and since the level hasn't changed, I'm confident that it will sound right elsewhere. It really is that simple.

and for that alone, we can call it a success I suppose.

K system isn't just a setting on meters (which I often avoid anyway) - it's an idea on how to set your levels for constant level monitoring. In my book, this is a smart idea. If you don't like the immortalization of Mr. Katz by the simple naming convention, then change the levels to -13 dBfs or -15dBfs and refer to it as dwoz15 or dwoz13 scale. The fact is, it will still work and work well at that.

J.

I actually thought he was being annoyingly coy. Why not call it the Katz monitoring target system?

Here's a question. I often vary my monitoring a LOT in the course of producing something...down to a bare whisper, back to average, blasting out silly loud, then average level in headphones, etc. I do that for a particular reason. How does K system sit with that?

dwoz

Thomas W. Bethel wrote:
Best of luck don Quoite (dwoz) on your windmill quest.

ahh, you sir, are very much too kind.

Don Quixote is the ultimate exemplar of Honor, Selfless Love, Loyalty, Bravery, Compassion, and stark-on raving lunatic senility.

If only I could IMAGINE myself living up to such a standard!

dwoz

dwoz wrote: [quote=Thomas W. Bethel]
Best of luck don Quoite (dwoz) on your windmill quest.

ahh, you sir, are very much too kind.

Don Quixote is the ultimate exemplar of Honor, Selfless Love, Loyalty, Bravery, Compassion, and stark-on raving lunatic senility.

If only I could IMAGINE myself living up to such a standard!

dwoz

And that, sir dwoz, says it all..... :P

I don't find any of this offensive, in fact I like a little stirring of the pot.

What I've found is that monitoring at a fixed level eliminates many variables. One being the sensitivity of your monitoring system. another being the effects of your room. and yet another is fatigue on your ears. I don't use the K-system. In fact I'm not really sure what level I monitor at, probably somewhere in the low 80's. That's not really too important to me. What is important to me is where my system starts to shine and a level I'm comfortable listening at. I have two marks on my volume pot, one for louder stuff and one for more reasonable stuff. If I'm asked to make a louder master, I move my pot to the lower level. I guess you can say it's K systemish. But I don't regard this as dictating how things should or can sound. What it does is give me a reference level.

dwoz

You might want to have a look at this http://www.cdmasteringservices.com/dynamicrange.htm

Thomas W. Bethel wrote: dwoz

You might want to have a look at this http://www.cdmasteringservices.com/dynamicrange.htm

from the first paragraph:

The music we listen to today is nothing more than noise with a beat. ...
The music available today isn't musical at all. It's best described as anti-music.

Well. That's about all I need to know about Bob Speer.

Next.

That's what is known as a " mastering engineer who thinks he's the producer...or ought to be". Its drivel. Pseudo-information.

What the hell is this now...some kind of religion? Dear god, its beginning to sound like an olde-tyme tent revival meeting, compleat with healings and stigmata.

Just face it, it ain't never gonna be 1985 again. THANK GOD.

dwoz

what's wrong with 1985?

Madonna...Like a Virgin....

and....

Wham!

don't forget the exclaimation mark.

dwoz

trust me...I have my own moments of geezerhood. Just imagine what it feels like to hear "Detroit Rock City" or "shout it out loud", and find yourself thinking that you wish there was a band that good today...

...and the sudden vertigo of cognitive dissonance at what you just thought rips a hole in the time-space continuum, sucking you into the interstellar void...

dwoz

I guess I can speak from experience since I have been around audio since 1957 and in pro audio since 1969. In the OLD DAYS music was written well, performed well and recorded well.

Today much of the music is not well written, not well performed and certainly not recorded well. The musicians expect to fix it all in the mix with eq, vocal processors and compressors and of course editing the bass drum line to make the beats come out correctly.

A lot of the current crop of music sounds like someone went to GC bought themselves some equipment and THAT NIGHT did the whole album. (Recorded, mixed and mastered all in one evening) If they have PRO TOOLS they use 32 effects (or the number of effects that comes with Protools) on every track and in most cases on every song. Then they strap a two track compressor across the mix and squeeze the life out of it. They also add more effects to the two track and then burn it on CD. The playing is abysmal and the song writing sounds like a junior high school students attempt at poetry and the recording is distorted and sounds like it was done in a tiled bathroom. It certainly does not sound like the finely crafted work of Sir George Martin or Phil Spector or Quincy Jones.

The problem is that many people today, who call themselves recording engineers, DON'T have even the most basic skills needed to do recording. Instead of taking the time to learn what it takes to do a good recording job they jump into a project that is over their heads and the result sounds terrible. That would not be too bad except they immediately press 1000 copies and try and sell them to the bands adoring fans.

If you like what is being recorded and performed today then you should listen to it. For me I prefer the "good old days" when the songs were well recorded and mixed and there was still a dynamic range to be enjoyed.

Different strokes for different folks as my Dad use to say.

MTCW

Well, I'll try to take the "glass is half full" approach here for now.....

Personally, I thought of all the crap that was out at the time (80s), "Like a Virgin" wasn't all that bad. It was pretty good stuff. It had a nice beat, you could dance to it..... And ya gotta admit, it's WORLDS away from what passes for dance music now. The 80's were what they were - at least in the pop/rock world. It was a weird time, with technology going as far as it could go before the digital explosion/revolution of the late 90's and 00's.

I DO think there's a LOT of garbage being made out there now, and that might be the reason why the field seems to crowded with bad stuff...you can't see the forest for the trees, perhaps. It's even harder to find the really good stuff nowadays, because the markets are so splintered. It's no longer good enough to trust the radio - and the "Powers that be" to deliver the goods. Most of what they're offering (20 songs per week on most kid stations) are just awful, certaily worse than ever. There are really only four or five major record companies now, as well, and they only want you to hear what THEY say you should. That certainly increases the "suck" factor.

At the other end of the equation, there are so many thousands of indies and "do it yourselfers" that the good stuff often goes unnoticed.

Not sure if it's a blessing or a curse, but we've go soooooooo many more choices, and the good ones are out there, but just harder to find. "Morning Becomes Eclectic" is one of the places I check out regularly, ditto for "Live from the World Cafe" and many more. ECM is still cranking out some great stuff at least once a month, and the ability to find just about any song - from any genre or point in time - via MP3 downloads is almost miraculous by standards of only 10 years ago.

Say what you will about MP3's (I'll probalby agree with you) but they are indeed the easiest way to hear stuff we'd never hear otherwise, and they're just what I need for music on the go. (I keep my CD and DVD-A collection safe for at-home listening, and the eye-pod goes on the road, the car, etc. etc.)

I DO agree there are way too many idiots clogging up the airwaves and making CDs with little or no talent. It's never been more prevelant than it is right now, and there's no end in sight. GC and Sam Ash are going great guns, last I checked; ditto for all the online sales catalogs like Musician's Friend, Sweetwater, etc.

And I agree that there's bad music everywhere, but this is because of supply and demand, and the modern, digital ability to store it and play it just about anywhere. Heck, look what we can do with streaming video now - via cell phones and webcasts, etc. etc. It's no WONDER that bad music has become the "wallpaper" (instead of the soundtrack) of so many people's lives. I know lots of folks who abhorr silence, because they're afraid of their own thoughts. (At least I THINK that's what their problem is! Hahaha)

But praticing selective hearing is a good thing, along with simply turning the bad stuff OFF, and then really, seriously, honestly looking for good stuff to listen to. It's out there, but ya gotta try a little harder and ignore the cheap lousy stuff that seems to pour in from everywhere now.

Two people to check out that will make you feel glad about recording and music these days: anything by Kelly Joe Phelps (acoustic guitar, dobro and voice) and the new CD "Illionoise" by Sufjan Stevens. If after you check out either of these artists and don't think there's something worth cheering for in the state of the music industry, I'll buy you a drink the next time you're in my town.