Refuse it!

{refuse it! if your work really means something to you, or you are just pussy hunting for dollars.}

Feeding my wife and kids is important, but I also find these session an interesting challenge. Beyond that, most of them are exellent projects and much care has been given at most every step of the way... even if I disagree with choices that have been made, my job is to make them happy. I don't know anybody that sends clients away because they compress too much. Many projects get sent back for mix issues. Perhaps this is a more appropriate response... everybody wins.

I don't know anybody that sends clients away because they compress too much. Many projects get sent back for mix issues. Perhaps this is a more appropriate response... everybody wins.

You're absolutely right Barry; there are plenty of ways to handle the situation instead of sending them away. Suggesting a remix is the first step I would take, and only in the very rarest occasions would one turn something away out of hand.

Sometimes ya DO have to walk away though, if it comes down to artistic integrity. I did have to do that recently to a client who was overly fussy - beyond even MY standards - who also wasn't paying on time (if ever), who was asking for things that were impractical and nearly impossible at the mastering stage.

It got so far out of hand, I finally said: "Look, I don't think I can give you what you want here; I'll be happy to help you transistion this to another studio, and you can go that route instead." (I used no harsh words, didn't shout or yell, merely politely got myself out of a serious time-wasting jam. "Transition" was a nice way to say: "I'm outta this one!")

They were stunned (and ultimately a bit sorry they pushed me over the line), but they did go elsewhere, and amazingly, they still call me for other things now, including live location work and radio production.

EPILOG: Someone else did the mastering and it's nearly identical to what we had done in the first place, but it took them a LOT more time and $$$ to come to the same conclusion that I was right in the first place.

I probably lost a couple grand in the process (IF they ever would have paid me - which was doubtful the whole time, and part of the problems we had), but I slept VERY well that night, as soon as we ended the project.

JoeH, let's not assume that everyone likes what you like. If everything had to fit into a neat little box and packaged a certain way, then we wouldn't have a music industry, we wouldn't have art at all. I been around a little bit. during early hip hop, I remember sitting behind the console looking at this guy saying to him, "you can't do that, it sounds like shit. Listen to all that noise and crackles and pops." Then it dawned on me that it's his art form, not mine. this is what he wanted and as it turned out, so did about 10 million other people.

I also wouldn't buy about half of the albums I do if they weren't mastered.

Most of the out of wack mixes don't have just one thing wrong. Most of the time is a global problem and you just have to find out the right combination to unlock the mix.

Michael Fossenkemper wrote: JoeH, let's not assume that everyone likes what you like. If everything had to fit into a neat little box and packaged a certain way, then we wouldn't have a music industry, we wouldn't have art at all. I been around a little bit. during early hip hop, I remember sitting behind the console looking at this guy saying to him, "you can't do that, it sounds like shit. Listen to all that noise and crackles and pops." Then it dawned on me that it's his art form, not mine. this is what he wanted and as it turned out, so did about 10 million other people.

??

I think you may be missing my point, Mike.....I'm not talking about being the tail wagging the dog in terms of artistic decisions, or types of music or even whatever the client may be smoking (or drinking). Everyone has their likes and dislikes, and I'm very sure we're all working in the genres we prefer to work in.

I think we'd all agree there are techniques and approaches that apply to all good recordings. Good mastering (not to be confused with mixing) is still good mastering, regardless of one's personal taste in styles. If it's a horribly disfigured, mutated track with analog samples, etc., then it must indeed be mastered that way, if that's what the client wants. The ME's job is not to change this tendered recording or clean it up per se, it is his job to get it onto the final medium as accurately as possible.

I'm talking about attempting to polish things that are already hopeless turds, or trying to force some kind of after-the-fact arbitrary change that goes beyond any reasonable attempt to fit the music onto a CD or DVD. (You know what I'm talking about when you hear it....)

Maybe it was a bad example; my decision to disassociate myself from the project in the above story was based on financial, personal and artistic impasses that arose between the client/rep and myself. Once I saw it was a losing proposition, I chose to end it; it had nothing to do with MY musical taste or styles. Had they been paying on time, and understood the most basic aspects of the recording process, we would have finished the project, I have no doubt. It's way too long a story to relate entirely here; I saw a train wreck ahead (mainly in my wallet) and cut 'em loose.

If this new relatively trend of destructive overcrunching and no dynamic range is a genre or style, then I'm indeed out of the loop, and intend to stay that way. I prefer to steer clients who think like that to someone else.

On many occasions I have not-so jokingly invoked the audio hippocratic oath: "First, Do No Harm."

It's one thing to create a vision, an arrangement, and a mix. In a studio.

It's another thing entirely to be the person putting the final polish on this same endeavor and thinking they have some kind of need (or even a RIGHT) to alter this vision too far one way or another. When that's required, IMHO, it may be time to send it back to the people who mixed it in the first place and try again.

That's what ME's USED to do, anyway.

And of course that's JUST my opinion; it seems to work ok for me.

As always, YMMV.

I understand do no harm, this is my first response. I take a "let me see where they are going" approach. certain clients need a heavy hand, others don't. My goal is to understand what they want, not what i find acceptable. If they are looking for a miracle, then I try to give it to them. If they are looking for the rudest record on the planet, they I give it to them. If they have a budget that would make me rather eat dog doo, I'll think twice and see how hungry I am. But to send a record back because I don't like (understand) it, is something different. I worked on a few very accomplished jazz records that were not Jazz in their sound. Now if I took the approach of a traditional jazz record, I should have sent it back. but they were not looking for a traditional jazz record. they were looking for a jazz record that sounded like a hip hop record. Loud, distorted, heavy low end. My point is... do what your client wants. You may be suprised to find that they know more than you think.

Good mastering is good if it's what the client wants.

ok, guys i am very sorry for my english sometimes, or the general lack of expressing something on the spot. (very precise)

joeH wrote:

You're absolutely right Barry; there are plenty of ways to handle the situation instead of sending them away. Suggesting a remix is the first step I would take, and only in the very rarest occasions would one turn something away out of hand.

this is what i essentially mean, not JUST sending them back, but than again is that not common sense??? (i really thought that this is common sense!) but sorry that i did not pointed out that you obviously have to handle the situation, as smart as you possibly can to get what you want (the highets quality there is to be achieved) without loosing nor upsetting your client!!!
and not just blindly doing because you have to (being asked from some moron (sorry again!)

i am NOT a pro ME, but i am more than happy if a ME sends me stuff back!!! because i am interested that my work, recording and mainly the production process, is presented as a whole to the highest possible standard, i do respect the work of MEs alot (they did often enough real magic to my work!!!), you have the knowledge that a request might be rubish, talk to them.

sorry once again to be so slack in english, by the way (no joke here!) how do you really spell excactly, ecactly... thanks!!!

axel

michael wrote:

Good mastering is good if it's what the client wants.

fine, this is certainly a strong point of view (state of mind, i would say)
but not one i personally can share as being so absolut!!!

axel

axel wrote:
sorry once again to be so slack in english, by the way (no joke here!) how do you really spell excactly, ecactly... thanks!!!

axel

es heisst "exactly"! ;-)

Danke schön, Ouzo77 :D

axel

* had to come back for editing, can't even spell my own language anymore... :oops:

bitte schön! :D

I don't know too many mastering engineers who are so flushed with clients that they can afford to send work away. Maybe someone like Bernie or Bob can but I bet they don't. They may give the work to one of their other engineers or fit the client into a less desirable slot in their work schedule but I will be willing to bet that seldom if ever turn work away. They are in business to make money and to have their studios survive. Turning potential work away is NEVER a good idea IMHO.

My mentor, who runs the most successful commercial studio in Cleveland, Ohio, NEVER turns work away. His philosophy is that maybe this particular client will lead to someone or some other job which will lead to some thing else and that by breaking the chain you windup screwing yourself in the end.

I am always amazed when people tell me that they have so much work they have to turn work away.

You never know where what you do or don't do today will influence what will happen tomorrow. Once people hear that you are turning work away (I suppose assuming you are the best and that everyone is clamoring for your services) they will go elsewhere and not only have you lost a client you have lost the word of mouth that this person may have provided to other clients.

If your mastering operation is so flushed with clients that you have to turn them away either you are down right lying or you should not have time to post that information on this web board.

MTCW

Thomas W. Bethel wrote: If your mastering operation is so flushed with clients that you have to turn them away either you are down right lying or you should not have time to post that information on this web board.

MTCW

I don't know that anyone said *that*.

There are some that are so busy (or busy enough) that if they get a shitty mix, they'll send it somewhere else or back.

Me personally, the worst I'll do is request a remix. (I do this carefully and infrequently too, as I've sent a track back for a remix before and they simply took it to another ME who DID do the job... :x ) The sad fact was, the track was awful and NEEDED mixing help, no amount of mastering would have helped it. (I'd be glad to post the info here, but in truth, it's from a guy who is on this board, so I don't want to shame him publicly.)

J.

as much as i love this heated discussion in this thread, but i have the feeling that it starts to run in circles...

t w b wrote:

My mentor, who runs the most successful commercial studio in Cleveland, Ohio, NEVER turns work away. His philosophy is that maybe this particular client will lead to someone or some other job which will lead to some thing else and that by breaking the chain you windup screwing yourself in the end.

i guess it's clear in principal, but i think you are missing the point.
of why and how to refuse an asked task.

no one professional would jepeardy (oh i think this is spelled wrong) their job, by JUST returning something 'cause you don't like it, we talked if understood correctly about really bad mastering / sounding records, and that it appears in the past few years far to often, and how it is possible to change the situation, and sometimes yes you do need the balls and breath to "refuse" already really bad source material... that doesn't mean to not doing the job in the end!!!!! (and a step like that certainly contains the risk of loosing!, but as i stated already several times... not evrything is worth the bread and butter... we see / can hear the result. cucco started this thread with an example of it!)
just a little comunication in a smart sense can help to avoid putting all to much shit out! and i have seen that it is possible, especially from very good, well reputated people, because they do have POWER, people will listen to an advice given to them... from someone who knows what he is talking about, if he makes sense and if it is done / explained apropriate, that's all.. or do talk really so much bullcrap????

MEs have send back stuff to me, and i was glad because the result of my own work was shining so much better in the end then it could ever have been before 'sending it back'

why i think that the ME plays a vital role in the 'quality assurance;??? you are the 'masters' of the final product, the way a record sounds, the icing on the cake... the last and final step, before it ends up on a record / CD.
you have great power of influence, use it in a smart way... i have utterly respect for your work...

of course it's a chain, good performers... good production... good mastering, and we talked about the last step / instance.. THE MASTERING.

with respect
a.

i wrote:

MEs have send back stuff to me, and i was glad because the result of my own work was shining so much better in the end then it could ever have been before 'sending it back'

that was in the very early years of my career, and i have learnt a lot from it!
thanks to the ME who has 'sent it back'

Well, maybe the question is: are the clients coming to you for advice on whether or not it should be remixed (a remix which may cost as much as the mastering); or are they coming to you to provide your service of polishing up the mix they have, and getting the tracks lined up for a replication master?
I think it is kind of weird to turn someone away. There should be SOME improvement that can be made. It doesn't really matter what you think of their mixing skills.

If I'm understanding what axel is saying, we're not talking about turning down work out of hand or becaue we don't like someone's politics or music per se., we're talking about something that is unfixable, or would benefit from another go at the mix in the first place. I doubt anyone would have a problem with that, if time and budget permitted it.

I probably took this thread to a whole different place by talking about a project I parted ways on; I assure you all one last time the incident was more over procedure, payment and workflow than anything else. I have no doubt that given unlimited time (which we had little of) and unlimited funds (which they clearly had none of). The mastering part would have been easy, had it gotten that far. There were just too many things wrong with what has happening as client/vendor that I chose to end the pain sooner than later. (I'm deliberately not naming names or citing specific incidents; that's really a private matter, and not something I'd share publicly here.)

In the vast majority of other cases, a simple production agreement is often the best way to solve problems. If someone is pushing you beyond what you think is acceptable sonically, musically, ethically, etc., all you need do is continue the job at hand, and have the client aware - in writing - that they're going beyond what you deem proper and workable.

You show them what YOU think works, and then you try it their way. Ultimately, the client decides of course, but you at least state your case and move on. That's what any good practitioner would do, regardless of the profession. Everyone gets what they want, and you know you gave it you best. (And you can be ready the next time, should you find it to problematic to do it again.)

I'm NOT advocating anyone turn away work on a whim or because you don't want to work on ska death metal that day, or that you don't like the look of the bass player sitting in the corner while you master the band's record.

I AM talking about doing things that in your heart (and ears) you know will benefit the client's need in the long run, in terms of the final master (not the contents per se). When it's an opportunity to educate them for something they will understand a bit further down the road (and will be glad you were honest with them in the first place - rather than taking their money and being a yes-man about it) then sometimes it IS better to suggest a remix before you try your end of it again. (Notice I said: Remix, NOT turning them away cold or generating ill will.)

I hold everyone here in the highest of regard, and I'm very sure this discussion isn't about getting all the work at any cost (and ignoring a glaring need to fix or remix something way back upstream in the process). That would be shortsighted and unprofessional.

I CAN tell you, though, that when the day comes that you're not afraid to follow your own gut, and do what you KNOW to be correct, even if it means one less client, you'll feel wonderful, and the work will continue to come in - from clients who will hear about your integrity and professionalism, and will want that on THEIR project.

Trust me, it will happen. Sooner than it will if you grab anything and everything just to "have it all."

IMHO, of course. :wink:

how can i say it?, JoeH, you just put a smile on my face!!!

you understood me very well.

All this is very easy to resolve. If your rate is at a point that weeds out those who are not serious about what they do, then you don't have much to worry about. It is really about where your price point is. If your price point is low, then you are going to get a lot of really bad mixes. If your price point is high, then it is likely that you'll get mixes that have been through a comparable process. if you are in the middle, then you'll get a bit of both. If you talk to the client and see where they are coming from, then you'll quickly know if it's intentional or not. But I can say that i've had several projects where I thought about turning it away only to find that 1) I didn't understand what they were trying to accomplish, 2) that what they were hearing when they printed the mixes was good, it was their setup that was out of wack. All it took was a little time and work (on my end) and everything fell into place. I can't think of too many times where they finished a mix and thought it sucked. most finish their mix and think it's good. It's my job to find out why it's not translating and tweek it until it does.

I just did a project today where 20Khz was louder higher than 100hz. Now I could have said remix, but instead I dug in and unlocked an obvious monitoring problem. Once I found the key to their problem, I was able to deliver an excellent master that some would have sent back to be remixed. The client was happy, the engineer was happy. Most of the time it's a global problem. At first listen it seems unfixable. Take a deep breath, don't look at meters and think to yourself, "what could have happened to cause this". then dig in and see if you can't fix it. Most of the time, with the right tools, you can bring it home. different monitoring situations bring about various results. It is the ME's job to learn and fix this. Sending it back it an easy way out.

i don't think you understood.

axel junkuhn.

p.s. this has nothing to do with where the whole topic went...

but there are still to many badly recorded, produced and mastered records out.

axel wrote: this has nothing to do with where the whole topic went...

but there are still to many badly recorded, produced and mastered records out.

I think this is a good place to leave this discussion; it's sorta where we came in, anyway....

There are clearly many views on this topic, all of them valid, all of them based on exeperience, and all of them from pros. Not surprisingly, not all of them agree.

But that's why HoJo's made 28 flavors of Ice Cream. :lol:

Peace to all, great discussion, and glad we kept it civil. 8-)

So it looks like a revisit is appropriate now.

Here's a couple of my thoughts (think "Jerry Springer's closing thoughts" if you will...) and observations of key important statements here out of this entire thread.

*Turning away work is not really in anyone's best interest. I learned this the hard way by sending back for a remix just to find out, instead of a remix, they took it to another ME who just wanted the money. Fact is, if you won't do it, the client will find someone else who will.

*It's often a global problem. Mike - I think this is one of the most important things to be said about mastering and often one of the least understood. Instead of tweaking knobs like crazy on each individual track, try to find the silver bullet that will get MOST of the disc *there* then tweak the last 20% (this is obviously a loose paraphrase).

*It is the ME's job to do what the client wants. If the client wants to smash the hell out of it - okay. If you want to try to educate the client - please do. Don't lose work over it - see item 1...

*Loud mixes aren't necessarily the ME's fault. I would say this is more true in "high-dollar" productions as the ME is usually first rate as is the recording engineer. However, somewhere, someone stepped in and said "Make it louder!" What's an ME to do? In some cases (or I should say in TOO many cases), however, it IS the ME's fault. Often, lesser qualified MEs believe that all mastering is, is to run a mix through their finalizer express and squash the sh*t out of it and give it the smiley-face EQ treatment. These folks deserve to be drawn-and-quartered! They're ruining it for some good artists.

*Politics and music DON'T mix.

That's all....(reaching for flack-jacket...)

J.

great discussion, peace...

and keep up the good work. :wink:

axel

> Wouldn't it be AMAZING to hear a record - even a rock record - that went from a true whisper to a roar (and not just STAY at a roar) and REALLY took advantage of 119 db range??? God, that would be awsome.

This is one thing I've always appreciated about Tool and A Perfect Circle. Yes, when the whole band comes in the meters are right there at 0 db, but they've usually got quite a bit of dynamics. Tool's "The Patient" comes to mind, the intro is MUCH quieter than you'd ever imagine something on the radio could be, or the intro to the Perfect Circle song "Vanishing". For a couple of hard rock bands, I think it's pretty admirable.

DeeDrive wrote: 119 db range

?

Well, it appears there's still some folks kicking this idea around a bit, and in this month's issue of MIX (March, 2006, pg 14) they devote the entire "Letters to the Editor" Page for one long and extremely well-written piece by a guy named Francis Manzell, of Griffin Audio.

You can read all of the letter (which is actually excerpted in the magazine version) at: http://www.mixonline.com or:

http://mixonline.com/mag/audio_letters_mix_54/

My favorite segment from his comments is this one:

I understand it's a “service business”; so is the studio design business. I've been working in the service industries related to music recording for more than 25 years. One thing I have always believed is the customer is always right, unless they're wrong! If they're wrong, then it's our job to help them understand why it's a “bad” thing to do. Shouldn't one expect a “professional” in any field — from plumber to doctor to recording engineer — to do things in a professionally sound manner and explain to you, as a client, why certain things will make your final product better? This is how I've always run my business, and it's worked quite well for me over the years.

Certainly worth a few moments of your time to check out the whole article.

After reading your post, Cucco, I've decided to check out this "K system" thing that you've bought in to.

I haven't quite put my finger on it yet, but there's bells ringing in my head that the Bob Katz monitoring standard idea (the "k" scale) is a badly flawed concept, that is based on arbitrary premises that don't have any absolute meaning whatsoever.

No dis to Katz, he's a righteous dude. But there's something really wrong with that idea of his.

Yes, its true that CDs are printed too hot. Loudness is not the friend of fidelity. Point given.

But there is no absolute reason for pegging the dynamics or level of a CD to some standard, the way there was for vinyl or tape (because of the inherent limitations of those system). The same limitations don't exist for digital. (which is a different thing than saying that there are no limitations)

The only thing I agree with, is that it makes sense to establish a broadcast standard. The TV folks have been doing that for 50 years, and it just makes sense. SIngles should be printed at this standard. But albums...

...why is it that MY album should be at the same level as YOUR album? They're different albums!

the fact that Katz has designated THREE scales is telling. why not 4? 2? 5?

I truly hate to say it, but perhaps the K scale is more about enshrining the name "Katz" than it is about solving a problem.

Or....its all about giving the audiophiles something to fuss over.

dwoz

JoeH wrote:

My favorite segment from his comments is this one:

I understand it's a “service business”; so is the studio design business. I've been working in the service industries related to music recording for more than 25 years. One thing I have always believed is the customer is always right, unless they're wrong! If they're wrong, then it's our job to help them understand why it's a “bad” thing to do. Shouldn't one expect a “professional” in any field — from plumber to doctor to recording engineer — to do things in a professionally sound manner and explain to you, as a client, why certain things will make your final product better? This is how I've always run my business, and it's worked quite well for me over the years.

Certainly worth a few moments of your time to check out the whole article.

this is on the 100% on the spot excactly what i wanted to say all the time. sorry that i was not able to put it so precise, short and nicely into words.
and it's excactly how i deal with my customers...

cheers
axel

dwoz wrote:
the fact that Katz has designated THREE scales is telling. why not 4? 2? 5?

I mix with a K-20 meter. If I want a 16-bit version to drop onto a CD I bring it up to K-14 with a limiter (usually just shaving a few peaks), and if I'm going to encode an mp3 for myspace or something I will use K-12 (and still rarely go above 3-4dB gain reduction).

Works great for me: I can throw together demo CDs etc with confidence that there will be no huge volume mis-matches between songs, and that it will still be easy to acheive a sensible listening level on a car stereo or small ghetto blaster.

8-)

dwoz,

It sounds to me as if you have not done very much homework with the K-System. Bob Katz has come up with a really good idea. It you will take the time to read all the information on the K-System you will see what you wrote is not correct.

Just my two cents worth.

Thomas W. Bethel wrote: dwoz,

It sounds to me as if you have not done very much homework with the K-System. Bob Katz has come up with a really good idea. It you will take the time to read all the information on the K-System you will see what you wrote is not correct.

Just my two cents worth.

You're most likely right...He seems to be trying to tell me what volume I want to listen to things at...which is probably a misread on my part.

That would be absurd, don't you think?

The other mis-perception on my part is that he wants everything to be mastered the same way, to the same target.

This would be (we learn) to prevent the loudness war, to prevent anyone from getting that little slight 'edge' over the competing productions, which of course peels his skin like nothing else.

Of course, this would immediately make everyone just "play fair", and be content to simply get in line and wait their turn, in spite of all the money being thrown around to give productions every little edge they can in the marketplace.

Yeah, that'd work.

You see, my initial reaction was due to my mistaken perception that it was not really a technical standard that improved the production process, but that, krazy me, it was actually a naive attempt at social engineering.

I'm glad I got straight on that.

:-)

dwoz

EDIT----

ok, after going and reading Bob's paper, I still find myself unconvinced. I believe he's made a fundamental error of juxtaposing the needs and requirements of the film industry on the needs and and requirements of the broadcast and home markets.

Let me explain.

Film sound production has worked to a loudness standard for a long time. There's a reason for this. In a theater, you have maybe 1000 people stuck together listening to the same program. It is imperative that you make the experience enjoyable for as many of them as you can. This means finding the best happy medium of program level and dynamics, that satisfies as many as possible. Because EVERYBODY is stuck listening to the SAME SYSTEM.

In broadcast, you have the problem that you have to prevent the program level from jumping around too much, because first of all you can't exceed your transmitter power without getting a hand-slap from the FCC, and also because it makes for an inconsistent program that bothers listeners who don't want to babysit the volume control while jumping from James Taylor to Outkast to Abba. IF different albums are recorded to a different standard, then either the broadcaster has to limit the hell out of stuff to level it, or pre-process assemble each cut, adjusting levels to a standard level. In any case, the single user (the DJ or the pre-processing engineer) has a level control that he can operate as he sees fit, without having to compromise for a second or nth listener. He/she is, in effect, having to satisfy a SINGLE listener/consumer...the station transmitter.

In home, the user has, in effect, one volume control for each listener...he/she can set the level to satisfy ONE person, him/herself...instead of having to worry about what the other 999 people in the room think. Typically, a CD produced today, whatever the level on that CD, hot or not, its balanced across all the cuts on that disc. SO the user can set the level, and listen to the whole thing, presumably without having to reset levels.

In any case, the important point is that he CAN set the level, in contrast to the situation that the moviegoer finds himself in.

The problem that I'm STILL having with Katz' system, is that he assumes that users are listening in standard monitoring environments.

THey're not.

Here's the basic rub. A mastering engineer should probably monitor at the level that the overwhelming majority of the consumers will be monitoring at...

The people who listen to nickelback will NOT be listening at the same level as the folks that listen to Faith Hill.

And its PRECISELY DUE TO THIS, and to the FACT that average level and percieved peak level change as the monitor level changes, means that mastering at a fixed standard level, will DEFACTO result in a compromise on some material when it gets to the home.

That's the reason we have the loudness control on home stereos now. play it soft, and it looses all its balls. That's because mastering engineers are NOT optimising for the level that listeners are monitoring at, they're optimising for some arbitrary defined "standard" level.

SO, my initial affinity for the idea of this K system, in that it makes possible repeatable results, rubs wrong against my feeling that music is anything BUT one-size-fits-all.

IT reminds me of my experience at the Bank ATM machine...it will let me take out $20, $60, or $100. Great. what if I actually need $50, and my account only has $58 dollars in it? I'm screwed, that's what.

dwoz (again)

I find the K-System unecessary as well. For my mainly classical music recordings, it doesn't make much sense to me.

I record music with the greatest dynamic range possible, then I master it with tiny amounts of compression, if any at all, limit very rarely, then I normalise to the highest peak on the entire disk so I am using all the encoding resolution of the limited 44/16 format.

I will do this for symphonic music as well as a lieder recital. Its up to the listener to turn the volume to suit. I have maximised the signal encoding of the music to the media correctly and do not need the guidance of a calibrated metering system.

I disagree that a chamber music disk should sound softer than a symphonic disk and that I should not move the volume control on my playback system. I guess the K-system is good guidance for clueless ME's but I cannot see the use of it for my limited work.

,

I think your readings of the merits of the K-System are somewhat off base.

No one is telling you to do anything. Bob Katz is suggesting that if you want to have consistency in your mastering your levels both audibly and on a meter should be repeatable. This will allow you to be more consistent in your mastering which is what most mastering engineers are trying to do.

The "K" system is for you to use or not. No one is forcing you to use it. It is a suggested set of guidelines that will help you.

My own feeling is that you do not understand what he is describing so you ridicule him.

Your sarcastic remarks are not very professional.

If you don't want to use the "K" system don't.

I'm not being sarcastic. I think that the intent of this goes beyond what's been described. The eventual intent of this is to get organizations like Clear Channel to adopt it, and reject music that doesn't conform.

That goes beyond just technical re-tooling, and dabbles in social engineering, and I think that's misguided.

As I said, it makes a very great deal of sense when you've got to play the same music for a large number of people at the same time. But when your audience can all modify the volume themselves to suit their individual needs, then the underlying premise fails.

The notion of standardized monitoring levels for individual recordings is a convenience to the mastering engineer, and potentially a disservice to the public-at-large.

Yes, I AGREE that loudness has gotten silly. I agree that we should all work toward better sounding music.

But the whole premise of Katz' presupposes that its a BAD THING to use the medium to achieve a certain sound. Who's to say that isn't valid?

to summarize my position, I can see where clearly the K system would be useful in a number of situations. I also see where it could be arbitrarily parochial, and I reject some of the underpinning assumptions that Katz has made, about subjective qualities.

If you were right...that the whole thing is just a way for mastering engineers to maintain consitency, then who cares. But the day that Clear Channel rejects a CD because it hasn't conformed to the K scale, then you can thank youself for painting yourself into an arbitrary, tight little box.

dwoz

Have you though about bringing up your concerns to the man involved? Bob Katz participates in Glenn Meadows mastering forum http://webbd.nls.net:8080/~mastering. Why don't you post your concerns there where Bob can answer them or you could go to (Dead Link Removed) and send him an email. Talking about someone without them having the chance to answer you is snipping and again is not very professional. How would you like to have someone saying things about you without you having a chance to answer their concerns?

dwoz wrote: I'm not being sarcastic. I think that the intent of this goes beyond what's been described. The eventual intent of this is to get organizations like Clear Channel to adopt it, and reject music that doesn't conform.

That's a ridiculous assertion: music that doesn't "conform" would simply need the volume turned down untill it did.

dwoz wrote: That goes beyond just technical re-tooling, and dabbles in social engineering, and I think that's misguided.

Katz is responding to the fact that many people now listen to CDs on the same equipment they use to watch DVDs: someone who puts on a modern smashed pop CD after watching (say) Titanic, without first adjusting the volume, is in for a nasty shock!

dwoz wrote: I'm not being sarcastic. I think that the intent of this goes beyond what's been described. The eventual intent of this is to get organizations like Clear Channel to adopt it, and reject music that doesn't conform.

That goes beyond just technical re-tooling, and dabbles in social engineering, and I think that's misguided.

As I said, it makes a very great deal of sense when you've got to play the same music for a large number of people at the same time. But when your audience can all modify the volume themselves to suit their individual needs, then the underlying premise fails.

The notion of standardized monitoring levels for individual recordings is a convenience to the mastering engineer, and potentially a disservice to the public-at-large.

Yes, I AGREE that loudness has gotten silly. I agree that we should all work toward better sounding music.

But the whole premise of Katz' presupposes that its a BAD THING to use the medium to achieve a certain sound. Who's to say that isn't valid?

to summarize my position, I can see where clearly the K system would be useful in a number of situations. I also see where it could be arbitrarily parochial, and I reject some of the underpinning assumptions that Katz has made, about subjective qualities.

If you were right...that the whole thing is just a way for mastering engineers to maintain consitency, then who cares. But the day that Clear Channel rejects a CD because it hasn't conformed to the K scale, then you can thank youself for painting yourself into an arbitrary, tight little box.

dwoz

Somehow TV and the Film industry have managed to live with it. Radio pretty much does the same thing. If the music industry doesn't get it's act together on it's own and regulate itself, it will most likely be done for us. I myself don't like what to be told what to do, but when I'm playing something on my ipod and the next song that plays makes me rip the earphones off my head, I get pretty pissed too. This wasn't much of a problem in the past because people listened to whole albums. with disc changers and shuffle, it's become a problem for me. One solution is to make great albums so people listen to them as a whole.

Thomas W. Bethel wrote: Have you though about bringing up your concerns to the man involved? Talking about someone without them having the chance to answer you is snipping and again is not very professional. How would you like to have someone saying things about you without you having a chance to answer their concerns?

That's the funniest thing I've heard all week. I guess I just better shut up about George W. Bush then, unless I copy my opinion to the http:// blog forum!

That's rich.

I think I said earlier that I find Katz to be a "righteous dude" who means well. This CANNOT be misconstrued as some sort of personal attack.

He's presented the "K system" as a public standard. That means that the public can feel free to discuss/debate it as they see fit.

I'd be VERY interested in debating with the guy himself, I think his rebuttal to my assertion that he's attempting social engineering would be interesting.

As I said, some monitoring standards (like, for instance, THX) make an awful lot of sense from a technical standpoint...and many broadcast standards make a lot of sense from a technical standpoint (i.e. the requirement to NOT exceed allowed transmitter power).

But I just can't get by the notion that the K system is setting an "AESTHETIC standard", rather than a "technical" standard.

Standards for mastering vinyl make perfect sense...because nobody is gonna get paid if the cutting head jumps the groove and launches into space. But you can slam CDs until you're blue, and its only going to....sound bad. The CD will still be able to be pressed, and it will still conform to redbook. (or whatever the hell we're using for a standard now).

Now, this does bring up an interesting side-discussion. Implementing the K system in a way, implies that the mastering engineer has no place in the aesthetics of the production, he's merely a step required to manufacture parts that are technically correct. That's the way it used to be, but not the way it is now...

thoughts?

dwoz

Well politics are something else entirely.

Are you affraid to contact the man, Bob Katz? Or is is more fun to attach someone who is not here to defend themselves?

He is really a nice person. I have known him for 10 + years.

If you are posting on a public fourm and you are bascially making fun of someone then I personally think you should allow him to have his say in the same public forum you are posting in. Why not invite him here with a personal email? It would be interesting for all to hear his side of the story. And it would allow others to form their own conclusions instead of only listening to one side of the story.

Thomas W. Bethel wrote:
If you are posting on a public fourm and you are bascially making fun of someone then

Where the heck do you get this?????

I am debating a proposed standard. I have some issues with it. That's what happens in a debate. One side raises an issue, the other side rebuts.

I have read Bob's site cover-to-cover at various times in the last 5 years, and have learned a great deal from it. He obviously cares very deeply about this stuff.

That doesn't mean I can't accuse him of attempting social engineering.

Tell you what. YOU answer the question. Is the Ksystem an aesthetic standard or a technical standard?

or both?

2) is there any place in our industry for aesthetic standards?

simple.

what do YOU think?

dwoz

dwoz wrote:
Now, this does bring up an interesting side-discussion. Implementing the K system in a way, implies that the mastering engineer has no place in the aesthetics of the production, he's merely a step required to manufacture parts that are technically correct.

Nonsense! You are still free to do anything that needs to be done, for aesthetic or technical reasons.. you can even smash it with a limiter if you want; you just won't be using all the headroom you have available.