Old 07-04-2007, 10:22 AM   #1
mr. moon
Human being with feelings
 
mr. moon's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 1,552
Default K metering on master track

So.... I'm assuming that the k-metering options on the master track meters are ready to use (by selecting them as a right-click option). Meaning: that there is no need to calibrate anything within Reaper (other than setting "0" at 83 dB in your mixing room)?

From Bob Katz (link):
"For highest sound quality, use K-20 while mixing and save K-14 for the calibrated mastering suite. ...Using K-20 during mix encourages a clean-sounding mix that's advantageous to the mastering engineer. At that point, the producer and mastering engineer should discuss whether the program should be converted to K-14, or remainat K-20"

So then in mastering, if your using the K14 metering, you want to try to keep the peeks at/below "0", but occasional "red zone" peeks of up to +14 are OK ...Correct?

Muchas gracias!

-mr moon
__________________
Reaper ...Think outside the box as you create within

www.soundclick.com/mrmoon
mr. moon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-05-2007, 06:07 PM   #2
undertone
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 130
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mr. moon View Post
So then in mastering, if your using the K14 metering, you want to try to keep the peeks at/below "0", but occasional "red zone" peeks of up to +14 are OK ...Correct?
The "0" in any K-System meter refers to average power. The material song should loosely average around "0". If you calibrate your speaker system for 83 dB C-weighted average = K-Meter "0" at the listening position, you'll find that averaging at a higher meter level than K-"0" gets VERY loud (unless you've suffered hearing loss, or suffer from under-sensitive ears...). The point is to use an absolute reference for loudness that your ears naturally relate to (and re-introduce natural dynamics into an over-compressed world...)

The 0 to +14 area of K-14 is to accommodate instantaneous peaks and so allow for un-squashed transients. K-20 mastered stuff (ie typical movies) has a average lower level compared to pop material mixed and/or mastered with no specific listening reference, because of the 20dB headroom it allows. Which also allows the WHOPPING EXPLOSIONS and CAR CRASHES to jump out at you

K-12, K14 and K-20 "0" dB ALL are equal to the same acoustic SPL level. The difference is in the amount of headroom available.

Buy and read Bob Katz's book, "Mastering Audio". Its worth EVERY penny.

u
undertone is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-07-2007, 07:36 AM   #3
mr. moon
Human being with feelings
 
mr. moon's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 1,552
Default

Well, it appears that I had it all wrong, as far as the master track goes. Here's a thread which discusses exactly how to set up Reaper to do K Metering:
http://www.cockos.com/forum/showthre...light=metering

...So why the heck does the master track meter allow you the +12, +14, and +20 options when they aren't even used for K Metering?

????

-mr moon
__________________
Reaper ...Think outside the box as you create within

www.soundclick.com/mrmoon
mr. moon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-07-2007, 08:31 AM   #4
undertone
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 130
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mr. moon View Post
...So why the heck does the master track meter allow you the +12, +14, and +20 options when they aren't even used for K Metering?
I honestly haven't spent much time with Reaper lately and looking at these settings and the instructions, it doesn't make sense to me either. The metering in itself shouldn't actually change, it's the markings on the meter than need to change. RME does it right in their DIGICheck accessory software.

The way it should be in Reaper is simply to implement 3 presets for rescaling the meter markings and the associated color scaling on the output meters for the 3 K-system levels.

When you switch from one K-system to the other, in order for your 0dB @ 83 dB SPL point to be accurate for that K-system, you need to recalibrate your amp/speakers to the new "0" reference. In K-20, 0db = -20dB FS = 83 dB SPL ("FS" = Full Scale, as in top = 0 Digital Metering), in K-14, 0dB = -14dB FS = 83 dB SPL, and in K-12, 0dB = -12dB FS = 83 dB SPL.

The reason why it's technically better to do this in the analog domain is that if you simply lower the output of your sound card in the digital domain by 20dB to achieve 0=-20, you're robbing yourself of the upper bits of resolution in your D/A conversion.

That being said, considering many people have good quality 24-bit conversion, perhaps the loss of a few bits at the top end wouldn't be too dramatic for most users in non-critical environments. In which case it would make sense to build that level recalibration into the K-system settings and you wouldn't have to do it in the analog domain every time you switch. All you'd need to do is calibrate one K-meter setting and then set the levels for the other two. This built-in level change should be a switched option. Justin?

BTW, here's Katz's online article on the K-system, including graphics of the K-system meters:

http://www.digido.com/bob-katz/level...-k-system.html

u
undertone is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-07-2007, 09:41 AM   #5
billybk1
Human being with feelings
 
billybk1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 1,504
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mr. moon View Post
...So why the heck does the master track meter allow you the +12, +14, and +20 options when they aren't even used for K Metering?

That's what I thought at first, cool, REAPER has built in K-Metering. But when I tried the various modes they did not line up or correspond with the K-Metering system. But, I found with a little manual adjustment in the Master VU Settings and the Volume Fader range/VU Meter Appearance settings in Preferences you could get K-Metering working on the master using REAPER. I had to make a few subtle changes, as of late, with the recent REAPER master metering updates, but it still works well enough for complimenting a properly setup K-Metering monitoring system, that I don't even need to use my Precision Limiter's K-Metering calibrated meters anymore. At least, not until I get into Sound Forge.
I actually prefer using K-14 when mixing today's pop music in a DAW environment, so that is what I keep REAPER set at.

Cheers,

Billy Buck


Last edited by billybk1; 07-07-2007 at 09:59 AM.
billybk1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-07-2007, 10:36 AM   #6
mr. moon
Human being with feelings
 
mr. moon's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 1,552
Default

Hey BB1,

Thanks a ton for all the information you've posted on K Metering!! I meant to say thanks in my last post, but as the father of a 2 year old boy who's getting into everything nowadays, I was rushed to post and didn't get a chance to thank you.

I was pretty disappointed when I used the Reaper K-14 metering option on the master track and it didn't look anything like my Fireface's digicheck K-14 meter. Then I set it up as you explained in one of your posts, and it's now pretty darn close!!

Are there any additional tweaks you have discovered and implemented since you posts about K metering last month (the thread I linked to)? It sounds like you were suggesting this in you last post, so I thought I'd check.

Also, do you *really* mix with your monitoring system calibrated to pink noise at 83dB? Maybe my ears are too sensitive, but man! That is way louder than I'm used to!!

Oh, before I forget, here's a link to a -20dB wav file for use in calibrating monitoring setups to the K-20 standard:
http://www.digido.com/remository/gen...-wav-file.html

Thanks again!

-mr moon
__________________
Reaper ...Think outside the box as you create within

www.soundclick.com/mrmoon
mr. moon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-07-2007, 10:41 AM   #7
Dstruct
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 12,288
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by undertone View Post
The way it should be in Reaper is simply to implement 3 presets for rescaling the meter markings and the associated color scaling on the output meters for the 3 K-system levels.
it's not only the meter marklings, but also the different integration and release times, different scale gradiation for certain level-ranges and so on ...


all explained by bob
Dstruct is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-07-2007, 10:44 AM   #8
Dstruct
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 12,288
Default

and why do you all only want it for the master-meter? i want it for all track-meters too!
Dstruct is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-07-2007, 11:02 AM   #9
mr. moon
Human being with feelings
 
mr. moon's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 1,552
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dandruff View Post
and why do you all only want it for the master-meter? i want it for all track-meters too!
Gotta start somewhere, eh?



-mr moon
__________________
Reaper ...Think outside the box as you create within

www.soundclick.com/mrmoon
mr. moon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-07-2007, 11:12 AM   #10
Dstruct
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 12,288
Default

hehe, ok yeah, let's begin with the master (as it already has some more options) ...
Dstruct is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-07-2007, 01:28 PM   #11
undertone
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 130
Default

Billybk1: I followed your instructions to the letter, and I see how you've set it up, thanks. But now for some reason the track meters are now also set the same way, which shouldn't be the case. There's also room for improvement: the RED zone should really be graded and in fact a 4dB yellow zone should exist above the 0dB reference before hitting the red, which is the target zone for average peaks.

Unless I'm missing something fundamental, I also have a problem with the reference you're using to calibrate. My understanding is that the reference levels refer to RMS values. If you download the -20 dB reference Bob Katz has on his site and open it in Sound Forge you'll find that it reads -11 peak, -23 RMS. Your -14dB reference reads -14 peak and -26 RMS, which explains why you have such an amazing dynamic range available to you

Katz refers to the fact that K-meters are calibrated to give equal results in peak and RMS when (and only when) using a sine wave. Pink noise is typically used for RMS C-weighted response.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dandruff View Post
and why do you all only want it for the master-meter? i want it for all track-meters too!
Dandruff, the reason you don't want to use these meters on track meters is simply because they're not really relevant since in the digital domain you don't want to reduce bit-depth unnecessarily. Given a vast enough bit-depth for mixing we're really concerned with preserving the dynamic qualities of the mix when exporting.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mr. moon View Post
Also, do you *really* mix with your monitoring system calibrated to pink noise at 83dB? Maybe my ears are too sensitive, but man! That is way louder than I'm used to!!
If you've set 0dB@83dB SPL using a reference of -14 dB PEAK instead of -14 dB RMS then it makes perfect sense. Your system is much louder than it should be. Proof in the pudding Find or make a -14 dB RMS pink noise source and calibrate to that. Or download Bob Katz' -20dB reference and calibrate to K-20, and then raise your monitors by 6dB using your reference meter for K-14 (not ideal, but workable...).

That's actually the point of this entire discussion: making our ear sensitivity be the guide so we don't keep pushing things up and up and destroy the natural dynamics of our material

u
undertone is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-07-2007, 02:08 PM   #12
Dstruct
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 12,288
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by undertone
Dandruff, the reason you don't want to use these meters on track meters is simply because they're not really relevant since in the digital domain you don't want to reduce bit-depth unnecessarily. Given a vast enough bit-depth for mixing we're really concerned with preserving the dynamic qualities of the mix when exporting.
? what advantage do you have from an peak-meter for each track instead of k-meters? i don't see one in a 64bit engine. i only see advantages for k-metering even on each single track because the actual movement of the meter tells you much more about the music than a simple peak-meter. a clipping led on tracks which go out to hardware/driver is enough i think.

i think bob also said this somewhere: it's useful for tracking too (but not necessary or required) ...


another nice thing to have: oversampled meter(s) as found in rme's digicheck to be able to see/catch intersample overs ...
Dstruct is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-07-2007, 02:49 PM   #13
undertone
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 130
Default

OK I'll bite (mainly cause I might learn something...)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dandruff View Post
? what advantage do you have from an peak-meter for each track instead of k-meters? i don't see one in a 64bit engine.
Now being more an artist than a mathematician, engineer or programmer, I may be speaking out of my depth, but from what I understand if you gain reduce a track that subsequently feeds any number of effects or is EQ'ed post fader, aren't you reducing the bit-depth of the signal that you're about to process?

Are you saying that such gain reduction of an input signal (say 20 dB at k-20) would have no impact in a 64-bit engine?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dandruff View Post
i only see advantages for k-metering even on each single track because the actual movement of the meter tells you much more about the music than a simple peak-meter. a clipping led on tracks which go out to hardware/driver is enough i think.
I'm not sure about the movement cause most meters are both RMS and Peak reading and they're just relative to the numbers on the scale. I think maybe that would be much more valid if there was some kind of equivalent calibration at the recording stage. Say if mic preamps were calibrated in dB SPL , so that 83 dB SPL would read 0dB on a "K-Input" scale. Then we'd be talking absolute references.

Otherwise current conventional wisdom is to record hot to maximize the available SNR and dynamic range at the mic preamp and take full advantage of the bit-depth of an AD stage. And I think that's still better handled by Full Scale metering.

But I do acknowledge that historically, the VU scale has these notions of optimal levels and headroom. I can see someone wanting to use K-system meter as an analog for the VU on input channels. I just don't see the advantages for myself. To each his own.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dandruff View Post
another nice thing to have: oversampled meter(s) as found in rme's digicheck to be able to see/catch intersample overs ...
Yep! But, if you're mixing at K-20 the odds of intersample distortion are pretty slim BTW: I'm a big fan of DIGICheck; it's a serious value-addon to the RME cards.

u

Last edited by undertone; 07-07-2007 at 02:51 PM.
undertone is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-07-2007, 02:54 PM   #14
Dstruct
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 12,288
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by undertone View Post
Are you saying that such gain reduction of an input signal (say 20 dB at k-20) would have no impact in a 64-bit engine?
mmh, i never had any issues with noise or something. even on a 32bit engine. actually i think i still could live with 16bit
Dstruct is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-07-2007, 02:58 PM   #15
Dstruct
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 12,288
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by undertone View Post
Yep! But, if you're mixing at K-20 the odds of intersample distortion are pretty slim
yeah that's right. but many (if not most) people never will make use of k-metering. so for them it could be useful to avoid bad surprises on crappy/buggy converters.
Dstruct is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-07-2007, 03:16 PM   #16
griz lee
Human being with feelings
 
griz lee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: in a hotel room near you
Posts: 1,175
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mr. moon View Post
Hey BB1,

I was pretty disappointed when I used the Reaper K-14 metering option on the master track and it didn't look anything like my Fireface's digicheck K-14 meter. Then I set it up as you explained in one of your posts, and it's now pretty darn close!!

Here too. I thought the +14 and +20 rms gain options would do it.

I must admit that i'm now totally confused. I'm familiar with the k system, but why do we need +25 in the RMS gain to get k14 levels displayed?

I'd be set if the option menu said "k14", k20, and k12 and everything was set accordingly, wouldn't you?
griz lee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-07-2007, 04:57 PM   #17
mr. moon
Human being with feelings
 
mr. moon's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 1,552
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by griz lee View Post
I must admit that i'm now totally confused. I'm familiar with the k system, but why do we need +25 in the RMS gain to get k14 levels displayed?

I'd be set if the option menu said "k14", k20, and k12 and everything was set accordingly, wouldn't you?
+1 to everything you said ....er, "wrote", I mean.



-mr moon
__________________
Reaper ...Think outside the box as you create within

www.soundclick.com/mrmoon
mr. moon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-07-2007, 05:06 PM   #18
mr. moon
Human being with feelings
 
mr. moon's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 1,552
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by undertone View Post
If you've set 0dB@83dB SPL using a reference of -14 dB PEAK instead of -14 dB RMS then it makes perfect sense. Your system is much louder than it should be. Proof in the pudding Find or make a -14 dB RMS pink noise source and calibrate to that. Or download Bob Katz' -20dB reference and calibrate to K-20, and then raise your monitors by 6dB using your reference meter for K-14 (not ideal, but workable...).

That's actually the point of this entire discussion: making our ear sensitivity be the guide so we don't keep pushing things up and up and destroy the natural dynamics of our material

u
OK. So I'm supposed to reference to the RMS values, correct? This means that the RMS meters would be at "0" and my spl meter would be reading 83dB when playing the -14 dB pink noise file. Right?

When I look at the image that BB1 posted, the Reaper meters are set to show the "Peak" values in the top label, however it looks like they're displaying the RMS values ...or am I really missing the boat on this? The UAD is showing the RMS at -14, while Reaper is showing the PEAK value at top as -14.

????

__________________
Reaper ...Think outside the box as you create within

www.soundclick.com/mrmoon

Last edited by mr. moon; 07-07-2007 at 05:10 PM.
mr. moon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-07-2007, 06:19 PM   #19
billybk1
Human being with feelings
 
billybk1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 1,504
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by undertone View Post
Billybk1: I followed your instructions to the letter, and I see how you've set it up, thanks. But now for some reason the track meters are now also set the same way, which shouldn't be the case. There's also room for improvement: the RED zone should really be graded and in fact a 4dB yellow zone should exist above the 0dB reference before hitting the red, which is the target zone for average peaks.
Justin would have to add that capability into REAPER. As it is, we can only have one "color" for the part of the meter over 0dB. Red will have to do for now. I would also like to see the Master meter colored separately from the track meters. Right now they are all one and the same.

Quote:
Originally Posted by undertone View Post
Unless I'm missing something fundamental, I also have a problem with the reference you're using to calibrate. My understanding is that the reference levels refer to RMS values. If you download the -20 dB reference Bob Katz has on his site and open it in Sound Forge you'll find that it reads -11 peak, -23 RMS. Your -14dB reference reads -14 peak and -26 RMS, which explains why you have such an amazing dynamic range available to you

Katz refers to the fact that K-meters are calibrated to give equal results in peak and RMS when (and only when) using a sine wave. Pink noise is typically used for RMS C-weighted response.
Hey, thanks for pointing that out. I am about one step above a novice and nigh side of being dangerous when it comes to the intricacies of the K-Metering system. I actually created that -14dB Pink Noise wave file in Sound Forge 8, I never took into consideration the peak vs. rms aspect of it. I scoured the net and could not find a -14dB RMS Pink Noise wave file. So I took Bob Katz's -20dB RMS Pink Noise wave file and created a new REAPER K-20 Calibration project. I wonder if you could take a look at it and give me your opinion/advice and see if it is workable now. I further tweaked the Master VU settings and adjusted the RMS gain to 22.5, so that the RMS level would match up @ "0dB" @ K-20. I would like to get a hold of a -14dB RMS Pink Noise file (SF8 does not seem to be able to create one), I guess I'll be doing K-20 metering for now. I would like to get this right, so thanks for any help you can provide.

You can download the K-20 calibration project from stashbox:

https://stash.reaper.fm/oldsb/27712/R...20test%201.zip







Cheers,

Billy Buck

Last edited by billybk1; 07-07-2007 at 06:46 PM.
billybk1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-07-2007, 06:53 PM   #20
mr. moon
Human being with feelings
 
mr. moon's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 1,552
Default Hearing damage??

Ummmm, has anyone thought about the topic of hearing damage from mixing with "0" being at 83dB? I mean, if you think about it, K14 would allow peaks of up to 97dB, and K20 would allows peaks of 103dB. If I'm understanding this correctly, you have your monitor volume set at the calibrated volume when mixing/mastering, which will give you a pretty continuous feed of 83+dB's, right? According to what I've been reading online and what my ears are telling me, that's way too loud of levels to be working at.

For example:
http://press.hear-it.org/printpage.d...=yes&page=3906

http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owad...ARDS&p_id=9735

http://www.hearinglossweb.com/Medica.../nihl/diff.htm

Here's a quote from the last reference:
"Sounds louder than 80 decibels are considered potentially dangerous. Both the amount of noise and the length of time of exposure determine the amount of damage. Hair cells of the inner ear and the hearing nerve can be damaged by an intense brief impulse, like an explosion, or by continuous and/or repeated exposure to noise."

I have great hearing, and it's not worth it to me to risk my hearing for anything. I've always worn ear protection when jamming since before high school and through my time as a touring musician, so my hearing is actually above average (last tested 3 years ago when I got my latest set of 15 and 20 dB custom earplugs). I even wear my on stage earplugs now when I'm mowing the yard, since I haven't been on stage for a year or so...

Anywho, I'll keep watching this thread as it's really interesting stuff.

Thanks!

-mr moon
__________________
Reaper ...Think outside the box as you create within

www.soundclick.com/mrmoon

Last edited by mr. moon; 07-07-2007 at 06:55 PM. Reason: spelling
mr. moon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-07-2007, 06:58 PM   #21
airon
Human being with feelings
 
airon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: City
Posts: 10,360
Default

Don't forget Billy, that RMS metering isn't worth a lot with pink noise.

The Dolby Pink noise that said to be -20dBFS , just need to be calibrated to play at a certain dB SPL(C-weighted), but the peaks are somewhere around -11dBFS, and the RMS somewhere else.

I always calibrate the actual level meters outside the application (RTW meters) with 1kHz sine tones going in to volt meters and then the RTW.

Your tips on how to configure it the master meters are great, so thanks again. It's great to have something like that in the DAW itself.
__________________
Dialogue/FX Editor & Re-Recording Mixer
(Video)Using Latch Preview
"My ego comes pre-shrunk" - Randy Thom
airon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-08-2007, 03:03 AM   #22
sebas777
Human being with feelings
 
sebas777's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 2,181
Default

@Mr. Moon:

Bob Katz admits, that in smaller rooms it might be too much, and one may need to use lower volume (afaicr 76).

But anyways, the idea of the K-system is to avoid too much constant loudness and overcompression: by listening this loud adding more level would be simply painful. On the other hand, short transients can be louder, and if they will hurt your ear, just dees them.

K-20 is for movie soundtracks, orchestral music and audiophile recordings,where all the transients are preserved for better imaging and depth, and where's need for loud impact sounds.

=====
One small "flaw" of the K-metering system is that the ear acustomizes to prolonged loud noise by limiting the perceived loudness. That's why most mixing engineers mix at lower levels, or start loud and then lower the volume as they progress through the mix. And also many listeners like to music at medium to low level. So there should be another metering system for the low and medium loudness, too .

Last edited by sebas777; 07-08-2007 at 03:11 AM.
sebas777 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-08-2007, 06:29 AM   #23
mr. moon
Human being with feelings
 
mr. moon's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 1,552
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sebas777 View Post
@Mr. Moon:

Bob Katz admits, that in smaller rooms it might be too much, and one may need to use lower volume (afaicr 76).

But anyways, the idea of the K-system is to avoid too much constant loudness and overcompression: by listening this loud adding more level would be simply painful. On the other hand, short transients can be louder, and if they will hurt your ear, just dees them.

K-20 is for movie soundtracks, orchestral music and audiophile recordings,where all the transients are preserved for better imaging and depth, and where's need for loud impact sounds.

=====
One small "flaw" of the K-metering system is that the ear acustomizes to prolonged loud noise by limiting the perceived loudness. That's why most mixing engineers mix at lower levels, or start loud and then lower the volume as they progress through the mix. And also many listeners like to music at medium to low level. So there should be another metering system for the low and medium loudness, too .
I can remember reading (many) posts on various "pro" forums about the optimal dB to mix/master at, and most "old-timers" were saying that 75dB and lower were best, to save their ears ...only hitting 75dB to do quick "loud pass" checks. These were folks who had been mixing/mastering since before the "loudness wars" took off, so I don't think that their techniques are to blame for the over compression that we're seeing now. I can understand the need for a standardization, but let's do so at a level that won't damage our ears!!

-mr moon
__________________
Reaper ...Think outside the box as you create within

www.soundclick.com/mrmoon
mr. moon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-08-2007, 02:50 PM   #24
griz lee
Human being with feelings
 
griz lee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: in a hotel room near you
Posts: 1,175
Default

I F/R'd the 3 colour range thing in case it helps.

But, can anyone please clearly tell me why setting the rms gain to +14 doesn't give you k-14 readings (once you've set the meter timings up) in Reaper as it is right now?

I think all this has the potential to be really confusing unless there can be a one-stop-shop which sets everything (meter range, time constants, etc) up.

Do ya think we should make a list of k-system requirements (meter range, times, etc) somewhere?
griz lee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-08-2007, 08:55 PM   #25
Tallisman
Human being with feelings
 
Tallisman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: in the middle of the icecube.
Posts: 7,405
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by griz lee View Post
Do ya think we should make a list of k-system requirements (meter range, times, etc) somewhere?
yes. good idea!
__________________
.t

_____________________________
http://jomei.bandcamp.com <--My Middle Son.

http://tallisman.bandcamp.com <--Me.

"Excuse me. Could you please point me in the direction of the self-help section?"
Tallisman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-11-2007, 09:00 AM   #26
undertone
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 130
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by billybk1 View Post
I wonder if you could take a look at it and give me your opinion/advice and see if it is workable now. I further tweaked the Master VU settings and adjusted the RMS gain to 22.5, so that the RMS level would match up @ "0dB" @ K-20. I would like to get a hold of a -14dB RMS Pink Noise file (SF8 does not seem to be able to create one), I guess I'll be doing K-20 metering for now. I would like to get this right, so thanks for any help you can provide.
(Got tied up with work, sorry I dropped this ball...)

Hi Billy,

I sort of cheat when it comes to getting a good level: I use Digicheck as my reference for the out-going signal for my sound card. I tried your project and it correctly read 0dB on the RME calibrated K-20 scale. I tested it with my RC meter and it matched the K-20 calibration I set my speakers to. I used that same wave and changed it's gain to read 0 on K-12 and K-14 in Digicheck.

But I don't agree with the way you're setting the meters in Reaper; in fact in the current version it seems the meter numbers aren't changing with the settings in the preferences (someone dicking with the code ). But in essence, Peak should always display higher than RMS and both use the same numerical scale. BTW, RME meters default to 20dB/sec decay.

Justin will need to get involved with this if we want to see proper K-metering in Reaper. Dandruff mentioned different ballistics for the different K-meter ranges and in K's book the meter scales are more compressed from K-20 to K-14; but from what I see in Digicheck, which was apparently done with K's blessing, the ballistics are identical. All that changes is the actual numbers on the meter.

So all Justin neads to do is just offer 3 re-scalings of the master meter:

K-12 = 0 set at -12 FS, with FS reading +12 dB
K-14 = 0 set at -14 FS, with FS reading +14 dB
K-20 = 0 set at -20 FS, with FS reading +20 dB
And in all cases, the 0 to +4 range is yellow, but I suppose it could be a fade-into and fade-outof zone.

As I mentioned in a previous post, it might be cool to include invisible output calibration for each K-range, though the caveat is not using the full output range of our converters on playback.

Mr Moon,

Quote:
Originally Posted by mr. moon View Post
Ummmm, has anyone thought about the topic of hearing damage from mixing with "0" being at 83dB? I mean, if you think about it, K14 would allow peaks of up to 97dB, and K20 would allows peaks of 103dB. If I'm understanding this correctly, you have your monitor volume set at the calibrated volume when mixing/mastering, which will give you a pretty continuous feed of 83+dB's, right? According to what I've been reading online and what my ears are telling me, that's way too loud of levels to be working at.
The FIRST thing Bob Katz mentions in his book when you're about to calibrate your speakers is to USE HEARING PROTECTION The calibration does require "ear-assaulting" levels and like you, I'm sure we're all very concerned about our hearing.

But one thing distinguishes professional calibration procedures from any others (including what I and most of us here do) and that's precision.

NB: 6 db RMS of gain will sound about twice as loud.

The way K discusses calibration in his book involves a good balanced room, high headroom monitors, subs, a flexible monitor matrix with calibrated gains and bass management, calibrated test tones, a high precision RTA and high quality mic, and more.

Now, how accurate are our sources, our software meters, our Radio Shack SPL meters, the calibrations on our equipment, the frequency response of our rooms, our test tones, etc... Can we say for certain that we're within 2 dB of reference? Probably not.

Some more thoughts on the subject:

-Even if you roughly calibrate your setup, playing any pop material recorded in the last 10 years will most likely sound REALLY LOUD Because most of it has been mastered to push gain to FS over quality and dynamics, which is the ENTIRE point of K-metering in the first place.

-Most music outside of mainstream pop has a very dynamic range. You won't average 0dBK on that material on any K-scale: you'll reserve the loudest moments (which are an averaged phenomenon, non a peak behavior) for the 0 to +4 range.

-Transients can spike dramatically over RMS (hence Dandruff's request for inter-sample peak metering...). That 20dB buffer K-20 gives you some space to help you prevent having to damp them. Have you ever recorded fireworks? It's a good object lesson in dynamics.

-In production, you're supposed to take breaks to allow ears to recover. I've seen people religiously take 15 minutes to the hour . But I've seen more people working for 10+ straight hours; and then coming back the next day and starting over because the mix sounded terrible as their ears were shot while making mixing decisions. Monitor level creep is another bad habit that a fixed monitor level can control.

-The K-system is primarily for mixing. I don't use it in day-to-day composition or experimentation. The best time to use it is when you're finished all your tracks, committed them all to audio and start mixing.

ANYWAY, at the very least, calibrating to the K-system, even inaccurately, accomplishes its basic goal: allowing our ears to make level decisions and giving music back it's natural dynamic range and transient definition that commercial music production has been sucking out of it for the sake of marketing. It's just for making music that much more enjoyable to listen to.

Apologies to all for the length of this post.

u
undertone is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-17-2007, 09:00 AM   #27
Dstruct
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 12,288
Default

Maybe K-Sytem shoudln't be the only option!?

Read http://www.dk-technologies.com/downl...o%20Levels.pdf for example. Maybe some people need other scales too!
Dstruct is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-19-2007, 11:01 AM   #28
DuX
Human being with feelings
 
DuX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Underworld
Posts: 1,092
Default

The biggest problem with meters in Reaper is that they're precisely -3db off like in Wavelab or many other "pro" apps, so instead of -20, it shows -23db. All RMS meters should be accurately calibrated with a sinewave signal, not pink noise.

I'm astonished nobody mentioned that.

Therefore I still have to use InspectorXL meters everywhere I can, they're excellent , precise, low CPU consuming metering plugins.

When I have to rely solely on Reaper's, Wavelabs etc. meters, you can always safely assume that what you see is actually 3db too loud if you believe the numbers, and that's not a small amount.

Btw. It would be nice if we could set the 0 metering line to -14, -20... because as thing are now, I need to remember too many stuff to accurately meter with it like: if the peak RMS in a song is -10, it's actually -7db, constantly recalculating in my head. For K-14, peak RMS value shouldn't get above -10dbRMS at 600ms RMS window, but in Reaper it's actually -13db, not -10.

Cheers!

Last edited by DuX; 07-19-2007 at 11:09 AM.
DuX is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-19-2007, 05:38 PM   #29
Dstruct
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 12,288
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DuX View Post
The biggest problem with meters in Reaper is that they're precisely -3db off like in Wavelab or many other "pro" apps, so instead of -20, it shows -23db. All RMS meters should be accurately calibrated with a sinewave signal, not pink noise.
yeah, confirmed. but i think this should be an option. the rms "+3dB" gain doesn't help here.

sine-wave should read the same peak and rms-level!
Dstruct is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-22-2007, 01:16 PM   #30
DuX
Human being with feelings
 
DuX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Underworld
Posts: 1,092
Default

Maybe there should be an +3db option for all meters? because, yeah, a sinewave should read the same level in both peak and rms.

That would be great!
DuX is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-22-2007, 01:24 PM   #31
Dstruct
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 12,288
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DuX View Post
Maybe there should be an +3db option for all meters?
no, it's just the rms-meter on the master which needs this "correction". all track-meters are peak-meters.

actually there is already such a setting in reaper on the master-meter. but that isn't really "working" for this (because it adds a useless second meter-scale and the level-readout at the bottom of the meter doesn't follow this +3dB corretion properly when selected).


and i really don't have a clue why we have 12, 14 and 20dB gains there for the rms-meter in reaper!? what's that?

imo all we need is the 3dB gain for the rms-meter.

Last edited by Dstruct; 07-22-2007 at 01:31 PM.
Dstruct is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-23-2007, 01:36 PM   #32
DuX
Human being with feelings
 
DuX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Underworld
Posts: 1,092
Default

Well, my point was that both peak and RMS meters should be sinewave calibrated, for the sake of consistency, so a -14db sinewave would show -14db on both, like in InspectorXL.

You've told it yourself, or am I missing something?

Anyway, a +3db option, separate for peak and RMS would have to satisfy everyone .

Cheers!
DuX is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-23-2007, 01:54 PM   #33
Dstruct
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 12,288
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DuX View Post
Anyway, a +3db option, separate for peak and RMS would have to satisfy everyone .
?

the peak-meters are already fine. only the rms-meter need the 3dB boost. it's even already there (rightclick the master). but the stupid thing there is, that a second (useless) scale appears in the meter and the bottom level-readout doesn't follow the 3dB boost properly.
Dstruct is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-23-2007, 02:09 PM   #34
DuX
Human being with feelings
 
DuX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Underworld
Posts: 1,092
Default

"...the stupid thing there is, that a second (useless) scale appears in the meter and the bottom level-readout doesn't follow the 3dB boost properly."

Now I get your drift . I noticed that.
DuX is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-26-2007, 02:52 AM   #35
Shan
Human being with feelings
 
Shan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 2,277
Default

Nice thread. Great info!

Shane
__________________
"Music should be performed by the musician not by the engineer."

Michael Wagener 25th July 2005, 02:59 PM
Shan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-06-2007, 05:13 AM   #36
daverich
Human being with feelings
 
daverich's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 1,605
Default

Would it be very easy to write a K-system metering plugin with JS ?

Kind regards

Dave Rich
__________________
Get access to all my original music as well as videos and free gigs at:-
Patreon.com/daverich
http://www.daverichband.com
daverich is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-06-2007, 05:33 AM   #37
sstillwell
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Cowtown
Posts: 1,555
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by daverich View Post
Would it be very easy to write a K-system metering plugin with JS ?

Kind regards

Dave Rich
No, because JS can't display a meter.

Scott
__________________
https://www.stillwellaudio.com/
sstillwell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-06-2007, 05:35 AM   #38
daverich
Human being with feelings
 
daverich's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 1,605
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sstillwell View Post
No, because JS can't display a meter.

Scott
hmm

can it display anything other than supplied widgets?

I'm thinking using a load of pngs showing a meter in various states.

Kind regards

Dave Rich
__________________
Get access to all my original music as well as videos and free gigs at:-
Patreon.com/daverich
http://www.daverichband.com
daverich is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-06-2007, 05:43 AM   #39
billybk1
Human being with feelings
 
billybk1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 1,504
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by daverich View Post
Would it be very easy to write a K-system metering plugin with JS ?

Kind regards

Dave Rich

Since this old thread, there were some important Master/K-metering related improvements made during the V2 beta process, so that REAPER has all it needs now to natively do accurate K-metering, if properly setup. I have REAPER set-up for K-20 and it has been working great and I rely on it every time I mix. One of my favorite REAPER features. There was a long thread about it last September, when we were testing the waters with V2 beta builds. I posted some tips on how I setup REAPER for K-metering, except now I use the conventional method for meter colors in most of the REAPER themes I use (bottom to top: dark green/lighter green/yellow (0-4dB)/red). I have the metering to where I want it now, color wise, using Youn's latest "yuongrey" theme.

http://www.cockos.com/forum/showthread.php?t=12401


Cheers,

Billy Buck

Last edited by billybk1; 11-06-2007 at 06:01 AM.
billybk1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-06-2007, 05:54 AM   #40
billybk1
Human being with feelings
 
billybk1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 1,504
Default

Dave,
reading through that linked thread again I see that you actually had a post in there as well. So you are probably privy to what REAPER v2 can already do, K-metering wise. I guess you are wanting do do soemthing different then?

Cheers,

Billy Buck
billybk1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:55 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions Inc.