| Author
|
Using Bob Katz K-System to mix?
|
dmtoad
IsraTrance Junior Member
Started Topics :
11
Posts :
56
Posted : Jun 13, 2012 16:23:13
|
Hi there,
I know that there's already some threads about that but I wanted to have more details from people using it (for mixing and mastering):
Do you use the K-20 to mix?
Do you use K-14 or K-12 to master your projects?
How does it translate in parties PA? (is it loud enougth)?
When you start mixing a new project how loud do you usually set your kick.
Do you think it's useful for music faster than 145bpm?
Peace.
  http://soundcloud.com/dmtoad |
|
|
|
makus
Overdream
Started Topics :
82
Posts :
3087
Posted : Jun 14, 2012 00:03
|
|
Domi
IsraTrance Junior Member
Started Topics :
36
Posts :
444
Posted : Jun 14, 2012 00:39
|
|
faxinadu
Faxi Nadu / Elmooht
Started Topics :
282
Posts :
3394
Posted : Jun 14, 2012 09:45
|
|
Babaluma
IsraTrance Junior Member
Started Topics :
18
Posts :
729
Posted : Jun 14, 2012 12:59
|
if you use any of the k-system calibrated monitor gain/metering systems, how they were designed to be used, then your final masters will sound very much quieter than most commercial music of the last fifteen years, when played next to them on other systems.
for example, if you are using K-12 (which bob only recommends for radio play), then you are supposed to ALWAYS keep the K Meter RMS gain in the yellow, and never let it go into the red (otherwise, you are not in K-12 any more). bob's loudest recommended setting is still way quieter than most modern electronic music, which can range anywhere from 4-10dB RMS.
a few things to remember:
1) bob mainly masters full range, highly dynamic acoustic material such as classical, folk and jazz. therefore, whilst i applaud his courage in encouraging more dynamic range and the resulting increase in overall sound quality, as an answer to the loudness wars we have seen recently, if you want to remain competitive in the here and now, NONE of bob's scales will work for you.
2) i believe it's not the actual specification (i.e. K-12, K-14 etc.) that is as important as having a fully calibrated, known, reference monitor gain, both as a physical SPL (sound pressure level) in the room, on your meters, and on your monitor controller. if you have a known reference gain in the room, on your stepped monitor controller, AND on your meters, then everything correlates well with everything else, and you remove a lot of the guesswork from "loudness" decisions. it also lets you know exactly, in dB, how much louder or quieter something sounds than something else, just by looking at the gain position on your monitor controller, and comparing it to your reference level.
3) don't forget the K System is in two parts, there are the meters, and then there are positions on the meters which are correlated a known SPL level in your room. if you calibrate your system properly to the k-system (a -20dBfs uncorrelated pink noise signal should read 83dB on your SPL meter), and then you try to play back some modern popular/electronic music at that level, you will have a VERY nasty surprise. the internet audio forums are littered with people complaining that "i calibrated my room for the K System, just like Bob said too, but when I played back [insert modern pop artist here], it BLEW MY FUCKING EARS OFF!!!"
4) having a stepped analogue monitor controller in 1dB (or less) increments is also pretty essential to using the K System properly. if you do your monitor control digitally, you are reducing the word length and sound quality every time your pull that fader down from 0dBfs. i'm lucky in that i can control gain in precise quarter dB steps with my Crookwood console.
all this is a long way of saying, "don't worry too much about it." if you are producing electronic music at home ITB, just have two known positions on your monitor controller for two different situations, both having the same perceived loudness in the room:
1) a lower position for listening to commercial, mastered music that you like. you can also use this position for self mastering.
2) a higher position for when you are writing/recording/producing/mixing, so that the subjective volume is the same as number 1 above.
1 is obviously lower than 2, as it had already been mastered/"louderized".  don't be afraid to push the monitor gain way up for production.
as for me, i have my whole chain calibrated for K-14 (-20dBfs pink noise reads 77dB on an SPL meter, slow setting, C-weighted). this means that most nicely dynamic popular material (i'm thinking classic albums, older rock, blondie, abba, steely dan, early 90's indie etc.) plays back at a nice listening level in my room, with the monitor controller reading 0. if i play high dynamic range material such as classical, or some ambient electronic stuff (am thinking vangelis etc.), i might have to increase the monitor gain by between 1 and 6dB to get the same percieved volume. if i listen to modern trance or dubstep etc., then i might have to decrease the monitor gain by between 1 and 9 dB, again to get the same perceived volume.
when mastering, every track is different, and every client has different expectations, so there is never a way to say "i always aim for this RMS on every track", even among the same genre.
going into the analogue chain, i am normally trying to get professional line level from the transfer DAC (RMS around -18dBfs), as this has been the standard reference level for professional analogue gear, almost since recording began. this ensures that the analogue gear receives a signal right at its "sweet spot", between noise and distortion. of course, i can also make the decision to deliberately overdrive the analogue chain for "effect", but that's another topic entirely (creative gain staging).
coming back out of the analogue chain, for most modern music, i am trying to hit the capture ADC at as loud a level as possible, before clipping (and sometimes deliberately clipping...) this is because using the analogue stages for "loudness" always sounds better to me, than using digital gain or limiting further down the line. for my converters this is usually around -12 to -14 RMS, which means i can and do use the K Meters on the capture side.
later on i'll use digital limiting and other tricks to get the final master way beyond any level that bob would be pleased with, but that my clients are satisfied by. 
yes, it's complex and difficult. it took me years and years and probably six reads of "mastering audio" to understand it all. only so that i could discard it in favour of my own calibrated monitor gain/level/meter system. but it was a fun journey, and i learned a lot!
the technical specs are all available in bob's book or on his site here:
http://www.digido.com/level-practices-part-2-includes-the-k-system.html
as far as i'm concerned though, for production, the really important thing is to get to know those two positions on your monitor controller, rather than slavishly following RMS or K-System recommendations.
http://hermetechmastering.com : http://www.discogs.com/artist/Gregg+Janman : http://soundcloud.com/babaluma |
|
|
|
faxinadu
Faxi Nadu / Elmooht
Started Topics :
282
Posts :
3394
Posted : Jun 14, 2012 13:04
|
good points mate, but what i can say in defense of more sane mastering is that having my last two albums mastered quieter, when played on a big system = WOW, sound is crystal clear compared to most music and people on the dancefloor very much notice and approach me asking how is it so different than others.
The Way Back
https://faxinadu.bandcamp.com/album/the-way-back |
|
|
|
Babaluma
IsraTrance Junior Member
Started Topics :
18
Posts :
729
Posted : Jun 14, 2012 13:09
|
absolutely, completely agree with you. high dynamic range material will sound infinitely better on a big rig, than squashed stuff, in my opinion, which will just sound even worse louder.
but i was talking about being competitive, and what clients are asking for. i always err on the side of dynamic range, but clients often ask for it louder. i completely hate the ridiculous state of the loudness race, and wish things would return to around K-14 for all popular music, which is just about perfect i reckon. but, as a professional ME, you try returning all your dance tracks at K-14 (or even K-12) and see how much repeat work you get.
in these modern genres, the art is in getting it to sound loud AND good. one or the other is easy. both, not so...
http://hermetechmastering.com : http://www.discogs.com/artist/Gregg+Janman : http://soundcloud.com/babaluma |
|
|
|
Babaluma
IsraTrance Junior Member
Started Topics :
18
Posts :
729
Posted : Jun 14, 2012 13:13
|
also, of course, any decent DJ worth their salt should be able to gain match tracks when queuing stuff up, so you are completely right, and it's always better to aim for "sane" levels. for trance my heart tells me around -12 sounds great, and this is usually my first "hifi" master, but i'll often be requested by the artist to push it to between -10 and -8. as it's a service industry, and the customer is always right...
that's why education is important, and why i spent so long in my first post here. hopefully we can all turn this mess around and have better sounding audio as a result. that's everyone here's goal, i would hope.
http://hermetechmastering.com : http://www.discogs.com/artist/Gregg+Janman : http://soundcloud.com/babaluma |
|
|
|
dmtoad
IsraTrance Junior Member
Started Topics :
11
Posts :
56
Posted : Jun 14, 2012 16:54
|
Thank you Babaluma for your enlightening answer!
I'll try to find the volume sweet spott on my system.
I'm really looking for some guidelines to calibrate my monitors to mix and "home master" my projects in an optimal way.
(for the moment it's all ITB but that will change with the time).
May be we could get inspired by the K-System to find monitor calibration / mix / master recommendations that would match our "loudness standard"... without over-compressing things. http://soundcloud.com/dmtoad |
|
|
|
Babaluma
IsraTrance Junior Member
Started Topics :
18
Posts :
729
Posted : Jun 14, 2012 20:54
|
No worries!
If you are using RME interfaces, you can set up the DigiCheck main stereo level meter anyway you want, so you could do a basic K-System, but have the "yellow" in other areas than -20, -14, or -12. You could also play with the release times, weightings etc., for different feels, in the settings menu. I have mine set a little differently from the K-System, a little slower, a little more averaging, using their perceptual loudness weighting scale, so they are not true K Meters any more, but they fit my style and my work flow better. It also means they register slightly lower for the same RMS, which means I am pushing things louder than the K-System dictates. This is because I was sticking quite rigidly to K-14 for quite a long time, on most music types, as a "guide" if you like. And whilst it was very helpful, and I learned a lot, the most common feedback I was getting from clients was "It sounds great, but can't you get it a bit LOUDER?". I don't get that so much any more.
Some of the recent trance I have mastered would probably measure around K-8 or K-9, if such a thing existed. It's exactly the same thing as saying -8 or -9 RMS, as far as the meters go. In fact many mastering engineers are blaming Mr. Katz for relying so heavily on an RMS figure, which is actually a poor measure of perceived loudness (one being that there are an almost infinite number of different ways to measure it, all giving different readings, another being that it is un-weighted, so bass frequencies register higher RMS than high frequencies, even though they sound the same to the ear, a further one being that it doesn't take into account transient response, etc.), but it appears to have become the flavour of the day when discussing perceived loudness. But again, that's a completely different topic for another time...
Also, it's really on a track to track basis. If it has been well recorded and well mixed with loudness in mind every step of the way, it's much easier to push it even louder in the mastering stage without too much detriment. Whereas bad mixes can "collapse" and sound poor when pushed harder.
This is IF loudness is your goal. I don't think it should be, but it seems it still is for a lot of people in a lot of contemporary popular music forms.
That's why it's truly a breath of fresh air when someone like Gio Makyo comes along and says to me "I'm not bothered about loudness at all, just make it sound really good". I love those clients the most, because then loudness is not a concern at all, and I can concentrate on what I do best (making things sound great).
Sorry, rant off, I could go on forever...
http://hermetechmastering.com : http://www.discogs.com/artist/Gregg+Janman : http://soundcloud.com/babaluma |
|
|
|
daark
IsraTrance Full Member
Started Topics :
58
Posts :
1397
Posted : Jun 14, 2012 22:12
|
|
knocz
Moderator
Started Topics :
40
Posts :
1151
Posted : Jun 23, 2012 17:51
|
Never heard of any of this before.. But also, for me (as a total hobbyist,) mastering is making sure there are wicked peaks and clips on my tunes, have a (relatively) same volume, and compress a bit the dynamic range of the samples so it's not so "out-of-control". I know I'm completely wrong, but that's what I know how to do.
So the idea is to leave more headroom, using less aggressive tweaks for the mastering and mixing section, effectively letting the dynamic range of the samples move around more? (I'm trying to "translate" this for people like me who have a real shttty playback and monitoring equipment).
Quote:
|
On 2012-06-14 12:59, Babaluma wrote:
4) having a stepped analogue monitor controller in 1dB (or less) increments is also pretty essential to using the K System properly. if you do your monitor control digitally, you are reducing the word length and sound quality every time your pull that fader down from 0dBfs. i'm lucky in that i can control gain in precise quarter dB steps with my Crookwood console.
|
|
I understand this, as the lower that fader is, the less bits we are using for our sound (the amplitude of each sample has a lover range because we aren't using anything above fader value). This is probably why some people argue about using 32 bit systems.
But while using digital stuff, either in a 64 bit environment or when the DAw uses a word for Double of 64 bits, I imagine until the sound exits the master fader it has plenty of sample definition to play with. This brings me to another question: digitally speaking, will some channel clipping (I mean, anything over 0 DB on the little visual meter) before the master affect the sound? Say I have something 1 DB over the 0 in a channel, but then I lower it elsewhere (say I don't let the master peak over 0db), will that affect the sound quality?
If it was analogue, I believe it clipped somewhere, than after that you only have the clipped signal to play with, but with digital with the enormous range for internal word, does this issue occur?
I'm way out of my ball game on this one
Super Banana Sauce http://www.soundcloud.com/knocz |
|
|
|
faxinadu
Faxi Nadu / Elmooht
Started Topics :
282
Posts :
3394
Posted : Jun 23, 2012 18:03
|
|
Babaluma
IsraTrance Junior Member
Started Topics :
18
Posts :
729
Posted : Jun 24, 2012 09:22
|
|
treetrunks
Started Topics :
0
Posts :
56
Posted : Jun 25, 2012 02:37
|
Quote:
|
On 2012-06-14 12:59, Babaluma wrote:
if you use any of the k-system calibrated monitor gain/metering systems, how they were designed to be used, then your final masters will sound very much quieter than most commercial music of the last fifteen years, when played next to them on other systems.
|
|
This is a common misconception. It ignores the fact that the DJ will match the gains of each track, that the sound system will utilise limiters and compressors, and that the system's maximum output has physical limitations. |
|
|
|
|
