ORIGINAL: javahut

A meter that registers instantaneous level would be a peak meter. To me, that's the most accurate meter there is. The average value (RMS) of the wave form would register lower. That's also accurate.

Actually right now it isn't. As others have mentioned, AES-17 says that 0 dB RMS should be referenced as a full scale sinewave, not a square wave. This is for the very simple reason that a square wave, after passing through the reconstruction filters of DA converters, end up 3 dB higher. In other words, a full scale square wave is actually at +3 dB FS.

Another vote for AES-17 compliant meters with a K-metering option.

UnderTow

ORIGINAL: John

The K system is a system not just meters. TKS integrates a calibrated, repeatable reference monitor position with a metering system that represents the current landscape of old and new approaches to energy measurement. TKS considers what I call energy rather than spikes allowing for a single system to faithfully represent peak and average. It's a method of establishing terra firma at a stage in production where small changes mean big things.

I hear you and fully understand that. It is also true that one can already calibrate ones own system and have a highly accurate monitoring system without the K system employed at all.

Also, as I said , it can't hurt to have this as an option. I just think that we already have more tools at our disposal then we can use. I guess I am on the fence.

Best
John

John:
Right again -in fact if you have done as you've said - then you have created the J-System. Good for you. It's all about branding.


-D

mwd,

Did you read the article I posted a link to above?
I compare it somewhat to photography's Zone System in the way it could be applied in the field, but it also addresses a more important, larger picture.

Are the ones posting here, that wish for this change or feature, saying that if I have K-System meters that are calibrated to 0VU = 85db that because I am using a program that is referenced to a square wave my references are incorrect?

I believe that's what they're saying since a square wave would actually peak at +3dBFS. On the other hand, if they were to use a sine wave instead the meter would peak at 0dBFS. So basically, I guess you can compensate for this by substracting 3dB's from the K-System you're using if you master inside Sonar.

But I'm sitting here thinking "I already have K-System metering in Cake" and I find the Cake meters a nice compliment.

I know what you mean here but the original poster wants "presets" where he can change the metering according to the K-System he wants to use (or something like that).
I'm actually still confused about this request since I think you can currently do it in Sonar in other ways. Like, for example, you can just change the master meter to display RMS instead of PEAK and have your mix at -14 RMS which to me would be the same thing. Maybe I'm not understanding what's the difference besides always refferencing to 0dBFS.


(Please correct me if I miss-interpreted something here)

I don't get why people are so against improvements. There are always people that want to dumb things down. Newbies getting confused by all the options is never a good reason not to include something in the flagship product of a company. If you don't want or need professional tools, there is always Sonar Home Studio. Seriously, if Sonar wants to be considerd professional, these type of things should be included.

And sure it can be done with plugins but by that logic, nearly everything in Sonar can be done with third party tools. In other words, it isn't a valid argument.

John, the K-Metering system is a way to minimize the use of compression and limiting. It is about making things more dynamic than the current trend. And if only for that, it is a good thing.

UnderTow

ORIGINAL: mwd

The original poster said <<Please implement K-System metering in Sonar>> which maybe I misunderstood.

By that phrase, I simply meant that I would like the ability to assign "0dB" to either the -20, -14 or -12 dB level as per the K-System spec. When I look at meters, I can't be bothered subtracting in my head. Similarly, the increased granularity of meter on the logarithmic scale would also be nicer to work with. That's it. I in no way meant to imply that Sonar's metering was broken or buggy.

I had no idea about the AES spec. issue Tarsier mentions. Awesome information I am still digesting...

I had no idea Ron had left. Bloody Hell! There's a shock, but S6 is certainly rocking my world...

When I mentioned inaccuracies in Sonar's metering, I was refering to the third or fourth page of this thread - http://recforums.prosoundweb.com/index.php/mv/msg/4918/0/0/0 - where Bob K. and Paul Frindle are discussing intersample overs and the like. Apparently Sonar, (or any other DAW), does not account for these types of "peaks". Hence my description of the metering in Sonar as being inaccurate. I did not mean to imply a bug or shortcoming of operation in Sonar compared to any other DAW, it was the thread above dictating the language I used.

I would also really like to thank everyone for their contributions in this thread. I greatly appreciate your input, perspectives, opinions and questions => you make me learn -- and for that I thank you all.

Regards,

Q.

Thanks for the clarification Qwerty... I now know I have no problem with some kind of user chosen option.

Undertow.... geez dude.

ORIGINAL: UnderTow ~ They are not reliable. If your meter shows 0 dB and the output is +3 dB, that is not exactly reliable is it?

Yep.. it's reliable as heck. It's digital and it's virtual. Accurate... maybe not.

ORIGINAL: UnderTow ~ Are you sure? How do you know that your material isn't constantly clipping the ouput of some CD players?

I don't know any more than you know what your finished product is going to do in someones remote device at which you are not present to witness. It is done by following good practices. I, whether correct or not, make sure I have no clips or hidden clips in my source material and master it at -3db. Seems to work but I have a built in margin of error being I'm not selling albums and of course I AM a proud member of a disposable mass of amateurs.

ORIGINAL: UnderTow ~ This is ridiculous. The inexperienced user should make the effort to learn how to use things, not the other way round. Unless you expect Cakewalk to put a sticker on the Sonar boxes saying that the product is not professional and is intended for bed room musicians which of course you don't. F*ck the inexperienced user. All the information and knowledge is available on-line these days. There is no excuse but lazyness and that is never a good reason to dumb things down.... And frankly, the inexperienced masses are irrelevant. One should cater for the informed few first and worry about the rest later.

You wanna' talk about ridiculous? It is those inexperienced masses, amateurs and bedroom hobbyist that provide the revenue base for this product. Always have. Weren't for them... you pro's wouldn't even be having this discussion. Cake was born from the need of a "home" studio for those that couldn't afford, or felt uncomfortable buying studio time.

With your professionalism and knowledge I am suprised you have forgotten that it was the Professional Recording Insitutions that were amongst the last collective group to jump on the digital recording bandwagon (globally speaking). After all how could a $5000.00 home studio approach my $500,000.00 analog bliss. It was only after having the heck scared out of them by a mass of geeky amateurs with excellent finished products did they face the reality that they better check this out.

ORIGINAL: UnderTow ~ Why should this be explained to you for you not to resist improvement of the software? Why don't you admit to yourself that this is beyond your level of experience and knowledge and either make the effort to learn about it or just let it be? Why do you even join in a conversation without enough knowledge to understand the topic?

I have no adversity to improvement. I do have an "opinion" of what is and what isn't an improvement. There is a high probability that I have both played and recorded longer than you've been alive so my level of experience and/or knowledge is something you know nothing about. To err on the safe side I have always considered myself an amateur, a hobbyist. It makes a good feeling when my finished product suggest otherwise. The bonus is I may never develop that cocky "I'm a pro know it all to hell with the rest" attitude that you seem to have a firm grip on.

Beyond my level of experience or knowledge? Not enough knowledge to understand the topic? I joined the conversation to learn something that was not self evident.

Your getting personal ... which is still cool... but I'll never figure out how you knew my studio was in my bedroom.

Amazing.

It would be far easier to educate the producer of these facts. I think the biggest problem lies in the consumer. Which motivates the producer, since he is hired, to bow (or not) to consumer demands and request.

There is a generation of consumer that has emerged and growing that feel like audio quality is directly proportional to how much trim you can vibrate off of your car.

ORIGINAL: mwd
To me taking something as simple and reliable as digital meters and Albert Einsteining them to the point of sterility is just as bad as squashing the musical dynamics out of a great musical composition.

Can anyone explain why this is so terribly important? I mean I've followed a simple process of tracking with Cake meters for 8 years and just hugged the "red" without hovering in it and never as much as had a clip in almost a decade.

...

... please feel free to tear this post to pieces or even better someone make me understand why this is so confounded critical.

It's obviously not critical to you. It is critical to others of us. We have tried to explain why it is critical to us and you still don't seem to get our point of view, as evidenced by your comments about squashing and dynamics and sound levels.

And finally what I really don't understand is why you persist in downplaying our request for this. We need it, you don't. That's fine. But why continue to post in this thread where you consistently show that you don't truly understand why we are asking for it? You keep saying "I get it" but by what you're saying in your posts, you really don't.

I'm reminded of the great "audio metronome" threads. Pages and pages of "we need an audio metronome" and "no you don't, there are other options available". My opinion was that we didn't need one (the other options were fine), but I never posted in those threads because I understood that to some people it was a critical issue and I had nothing to contribute other than to outline some of the other options. Now we have an audio metronome. It's buggy and not as flexible as some of the other options, but it's there and no one says much about it anymore, except when they encounter a bug in it. And yeah, now I'm glad it's there.

So yes, you're absolutely free to express your opinion about the meters here. I just don't understand why you feel the need to do so.

tarsier the original poster said exactly <<Please implement K-System metering in Sonar>>

It is obvious that this request could be taken 2 ways... visually and functionally.

It's obviously not critical to you. It is critical to others of us. We have tried to explain why it is critical to us and you still don't seem to get our point of view, as evidenced by your comments about squashing and dynamics and sound levels.

Which was made prior to Qwerty clarifying that he meant <<I would like the ability to assign "0dB" to either the -20, -14 or -12 dB level as per the K-System spec>>.

To which I stated <<I have no adversity to improvement.>> and <<I now know I have no problem with some kind of user chosen option>>

How do you translate that to me down playing your needs?

The meters in Cake are chocked full of variable tweaks. Some for you and some for me and they don't have to be the same.

I have no problem with Cake solving a problem other users encounter even if they don't knowingly affect me.

When he clarified and others educated (including yourself) I concurred and agreed with you.

When he said K-System meters, when I have a set of K-System meters and would not wish to have a redundant set of meters... I objected.

Because it is not critical to me (which you are correct) does not mean I don't get your point (which I do) or that I don't truly understand (which I do) or that I object to this fix for you (which I don't).

ORIGINAL: mwd
Yep.. it's reliable as heck. It's digital and it's virtual. Accurate... maybe not.

Well not exactly. I must admit I am mixing different ideas into my posts. There is the K-Metering system, the AES-17 compliant aspect and the oversampling meters with waveform reconstruction. Idealy I would like to have all of them as options on individual meters. (I wouldn't need oversampling meters on all channels. Only one pair for the master bus not least because these meters would add a (much) bigger CPU hit).

I don't know any more than you know what your finished product is going to do in someones remote device at which you are not present to witness. It is done by following good practices. I, whether correct or not, make sure I have no clips or hidden clips in my source material and master it at -3db. Seems to work but I have a built in margin of error being I'm not selling albums and of course I AM a proud member of a disposable mass of amateurs.

One way to be able to play things safe is to have accurate metering that takes all aspects into account. Delivering a CD that is 3 dB down isn't really an option these days in the competitive market. Yet it is possible to deliver something that peaks at 0 dB FS without any inter sample peaks that go beyond 0 dB FS.

You wanna' talk about ridiculous? It is those inexperienced masses, amateurs and bedroom hobbyist that provide the revenue base for this product. Always have. Weren't for them... you pro's wouldn't even be having this discussion. Cake was born from the need of a "home" studio for those that couldn't afford, or felt uncomfortable buying studio time.

I worded myself a bit too harshly. Of course everyone that buys Sonar is important to Cakewalk but leaving out features because some people might get confused is really a bad idea. There are always simpler products for people that really don't understand or couldn't be bothered to dive into the manual. But, Sonar being the flagship product of Cakewalk and the product certainly being aimed at professionals (and others), it should cater to the needs of professionals.

With your professionalism and knowledge I am suprised you have forgotten that it was the Professional Recording Insitutions that were amongst the last collective group to jump on the digital recording bandwagon (globally speaking). After all how could a $5000.00 home studio approach my $500,000.00 analog bliss. It was only after having the heck scared out of them by a mass of geeky amateurs with excellent finished products did they face the reality that they better check this out.

Huh? The first digital equipment was expensive and cost alot more than $5000. It could be found in expensive studios. Not in people's bedrooms. Anyway, this is totaly irrelevant. What counts is what is happening now and in the future.

I have no adversity to improvement. I do have an "opinion" of what is and what isn't an improvement.

Yes but it isn't really relevant if you do not understand the topic. Everybody has opinions. Only few matter.

There is a high probability that I have both played and recorded longer than you've been alive so my level of experience and/or knowledge is something you know nothing about.

It doesn't matter. I am responding to what you write here and nothing else.

The bonus is I may never develop that cocky "I'm a pro know it all to hell with the rest" attitude that you seem to have a firm grip on.

I'm not being cocky. I'm frustrated with people resisting advancement.

Beyond my level of experience or knowledge? Not enough knowledge to understand the topic? I joined the conversation to learn something that was not self evident.

Then you should have joined in with questions and not with opposition to something that you didn't get.

Your getting personal ... which is still cool... but I'll never figure out how you knew my studio was in my bedroom.

Amazing.

Lol. That was not directed at anyone in particular.

UnderTow

Something to add to the discussion from

http://www.cadenzarecording.com/papers/Digitaldistortion.pdf

Maybe Nika will grace us with his presence again...


"One familiar analog tool that has been bought over to the digital realm is a ‘peak meter’ that tells the amplitude of the waveform’s peaks. In the analog realm, peak signal was an indicator that would tell the audio engineer when the peak signal level was getting too high. A peak signal in analog recording would cause the tape to saturate, creating distortion. In an analog system however, this type of distortion was often deliberately engineered into tracks in order to achieve a certain sound. In the digital realm this type of meter is important and more vital, because if the amplitude of a waveform exceeds the top of the measurable scale (full scale, or ‘full code’) the signal will ‘clip’ causing unwanted and unpleasant distortion rather than the traditional distorted sound of analog. This digital clipping occurs because the waveform is ‘lopped off’ and the data is changed. When the waveform is reconstructed it cannot be accurately done so in order to represent the original waveform. Instead, it has a significant amount of inharmonic distortion caused by aliasing. For this reason, digital recording has a maximum level at which signals can be recorded. Anything exceeding this level (full scale) has undesirable consequences."

"The method used for computing the peak value inside the system however, is not particularly accurate. DAW and digital mixer manufacturers typically take the amplitude of the samples and use these as the basis for the peak meter. The problem with this approach is easily identified: the samples themselves do not represent the peak value of the waveform. The waveform is only complete after the reconstruction process. Until this process has been completed, the waveform is inaccurately represented by the samples. This is the reason that in most DAWs the waveform is represented on the screen as a ‘dot to dot’ connection between sample points. They do not undergo the reconstruction process inside the system, so all that can be represented is the sample points, and for the sake of visual ease, they connect the dots between them with straight lines. They save the reconstruction process for the digital to analog converters and show the user inaccurate information instead."

"The consequence of the way in which DAW’s treat waveforms is that the meter inside the DAW or other digital mixers inevitably shows inaccurate information. It is virtually a mathematical certainty that the waveform will actually exceed the amplitude of the samples in any sampling system. The samples themselves only represent a waveform, It is important to understand that the amplitude of the waveform will invariably exceed the sample values."

Somebody let me know if I'm wrong... Isn't the reconstruction process itself determined by the DAC design, meaning no single standardized sample interpretation method? So if Sonar theoretically says your sample peak is -0.1 dB, but your intersample peak is +1.5 dB it could still be wrong. Someone's CD player will reconstruct the same samples to create a +2.0 dB intersample peak and another a +1.0 dB peak, etc. I pretty much believe if your audio software is showing you a continuous waveform display then they're probably using commercial line drawing libraries to do this. And that means that the curve you see may or may not be the same the output as the DA converter.

You may be right. I for one hope that CW has their own waveform writing algorithm. After all what am I paying for?

Best
John

ORIGINAL: tarsier

ORIGINAL: Qwerty69
When I mentioned inaccuracies in Sonar's metering, I was refering to the third or fourth page of this thread - http://recforums.prosoundweb.com/index.php/mv/msg/4918/0/0/0 - where Bob K. and Paul Frindle are discussing intersample overs and the like. Apparently Sonar, (or any other DAW), does not account for these types of "peaks". Hence my description of the metering in Sonar as being inaccurate. I did not mean to imply a bug or shortcoming of operation in Sonar compared to any other DAW, it was the thread above dictating the language I used.

Oh, ok. The inter-sample overs. Adobe Audition is the only program I have that shows them. (what other programs do?) And it does it in the waveform view, not the meters. To deal with inter-sample overs in Sonar, I have Izotope Ozone on the master bus with its loudness maximizer set to catch the intersample overs. And I mix to the K-14 standard (which still provides for very dynamic mixes) so the limiter barely and rarely kicks in anyway.

Now then. To me, meters that show inter-sample peaks aren't important to my workflow for the reasons I outlined above. But it would sure be nice if the meters did show them, and I would never presume to say "why does Sonar need them?" Particularly when Sonar's ad copy reads "precision and power" (does it still do that?) the more options on the meters (one aspect of the "precision" part) the better.

T:
I am interested in the inter-sample overs - I haven't considered them - are you literally referring to peaks above DBFS happening 'inbetween" the 48,000 samples every second - wow I hadn't considered that. So does that mean if I were sampling at 192k/sec at least I'd 'see' the square wave? Very interesting.

-D

ORIGINAL: altima_boy_2001
Somebody let me know if I'm wrong...

Isn't the reconstruction process itself determined by the DAC design, meaning no single standardized sample interpretation method? So if Sonar theoretically says your sample peak is -0.1 dB, but your intersample peak is +1.5 dB it could still be wrong. Someone's CD player will reconstruct the same samples to create a +2.0 dB intersample peak and another a +1.0 dB peak, etc.

Actually no. Sampling theory is about bandwidth limited signals so any half decent DAC should have the reconstruction filters limiting to the same bandwidth (half nyquist). The difference there is is that some DACs have more headroom in the analogue stages. A good DAC won't easily clip even with inter sample peaks while a lesser DAC will clip with the same signal.

I pretty much believe if your audio software is showing you a continuous waveform display then they're probably using commercial line drawing libraries to do this. And that means that the curve you see may or may not be the same output as the DA converter.

The only DAW I am familiar with that shows the reconstructed wave is CoollEdit/Audition. See Tarsier's included pics. Others just do a sort of "join the dots" pseudo wave.

UnderTow