I agree with Katz's intention to restore dynamic range to recorded music.
A new metering scale is NOT going to accomplish this.
We already have metering to accomplish this.
If you establish a new 0 db VU at -12,-14, or -20 db DFS, then the minions of loudness will simply produce recordings at +12 +14 or +20 db VU and 0 db DFS.
Think about the fact that music recorded in a multi-million dollar studio costing thousands a day winds up sounding like it was recorded on a 4-trk cassette portastudio using mics from old CB radios. 
It is a matter of taste and/or what sells. I have heard many mix/mastering engineers discuss this subject. Most are horrified but squash the dynamic range anyway because that is what sells. If they refuse, the producer will simply get someone else to do it.
It may not even be related to what sells. I saw a study concluding no correlation between loudness and sales (not sure I agree). One producer said it is so everyone can high-five each other at the post production party because the mix is louder than everyone else's.
It is a fad like many other things. When a few killer records are produced that go against the grain, the fad will fade or at least become a curiosity.
Who knows, maybe it will become cool to actually feature the monster dynamic range modern digital equipment allows. 

Just checked out my favorite new music on Sound Forge to see what the files look like:  it's Conquering Dystopia, a Technical Death Metal project released a few months ago.  The files look like a continuous bar at 0dB--completely squashed.  It's one of the loudest albums I've heard.  And yet . . . somehow it sounds great, as if there are dynamics.  Unfortunately, mixing and mastering engineers are getting better and better at the loudness wars.

microapp
I agree with Katz's intention to restore dynamic range to recorded music.
A new metering scale is NOT going to accomplish this.

You're misreading him. He's saying that new broadcast standards are what will make it happen, not metering. The recommended metering approaches are simply to help people mix and master in an optimal way for those standards.

John T

microapp
I agree with Katz's intention to restore dynamic range to recorded music.
A new metering scale is NOT going to accomplish this.

You're misreading him. He's saying that new broadcast standards are what will make it happen, not metering. The recommended metering approaches are simply to help people mix and master in an optimal way for those standards.

Exactly, with new standards in place (eg iTunes@ -16 LUFS) all material regardles of their RMS value is adjusted to that value.

In essence record/ master with lower RMS values keeping the dynamics (as the squashed material will only be lowered anyway & will probably translate into sounding worse.)

Keith Albright [Cakewalk]
There's now a standard whereby a process can run through the audio and determine the correct gain based on several factors, peak rise/fall/crest factor/etc. 

Somebody should tell the XM Radio network about this.  Some of their talk channels are really annoying to listen to because the host is about 20 dB hotter than the callers or guests.  I would have thought in 2014 this would all be automated.

 
I am confused. Is Katz the only sound guy who thinks that the "loudness wars" is actually about loudness ie. peak volume? What he seems to be describing is an algorithm that sets the overall volume of a song based on keeping the peak volume the same for various recordings. That kind of peak limiting has been built into MP3 players or the software used to load them with songs for a long time. The goal was to be able to keep jogging without having to stop to adjust the volume so your ears didn't bleed on your sweatsuit.
 
But what most people seem to be talking about in the loudness wars issue is compression, raising the low volume parts to limit the dynamic range. The average listener can pump the output gain as high as his damaged hair cells can tolerate regardless of how the sound is compressed. But what seems to be appealing to him is that the volume never drops below his threshold of over-stimulation. I listen to music at levels my young acquaintances can barely hear, but even at low levels the difference between highly compressed sound and sound with a wide dynamic range is obvious. My young friends prefer it like that, and if forced to listen to an over-compressed song at a lower peak volume or one with a wide dynamic range that is rattling their ossicles on the peaks, they would pick the less loud but more compressed version.
 
If that is correct, i.e. what the recording industry has been working to achieve in order to sell to the masses, is not "loudness," which after all could be done with a gain knob, but highly compressed audio. If that is what the consumer craves, how does this help retrain them to love dynamic range?

That's a reason why I mix/ master to R128 -23 LUFS for internet radio, DVD.
You get the dynamics & the levels will adjusted upward, not down.
For CD I aim for about -16 LUFS.

In europe now many radio stations mix/master to R128 -23 LUFS.
A youtube vid of F. Tischmeier about the normalisation and the new  standard
eyplains a lot ,so that even I can understand this standard and the old behaviour of
radio and tv stations in europe.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c7mUKbi8CEg

slartabartfast
 
I am confused. Is Katz the only sound guy who thinks that the "loudness wars" is actually about loudness ie. peak volume? What he seems to be describing is an algorithm that sets the overall volume of a song based on keeping the peak volume the same for various recordings. That kind of peak limiting has been built into MP3 players or the software used to load them with songs for a long time. The goal was to be able to keep jogging without having to stop to adjust the volume so your ears didn't bleed on your sweatsuit.
 

Katz is basically saying...
Lower the 0db RMS point to -14 DB FS (full scale) for the K-14 metering.
Then if you stay below this , the peaks will not clip without using  compression.
This will be true for most music.
He has a K-12 scale for radio/tv and a K-20 scale for film but the same thing applies.
K-12 for 12 db of peak headroom, K-14 for 14 db, and K-20 for 20db.
Studies show that typically music will have an average of 13db dynamic range which is why he choose -14 db...leave room for the dynamic range without compression and prevent peak clipping.
My previous point was that you can already do this.
When setting levels, I set Sonar's metering to show peak and RMS at the same time.
I keep the peaks from clipping and the RMS levels will be 10-15 db below the peak level.
Katz is essentially trying to coax people to leave 14 db (K-14) of headroom w/o using compression.
A noble cause for sure but a new metering scale just ain't gonna do it.
 
 

FWIW, when mastering I'm often asked to make it as loud as possible. But if I like the music I'll often do two versions, one the way the client thinks they want it, the other the way I want it. Most of the time, they'll choose the version with more dynamics when they have a chance to compare side-by-side.
 
However I do have several techniques that make for a "loud" sound but preserve dynamics to a large degree, and that helps the cause...it sort of weans them off the super-loud aspect.