RMS Levels

I've been working on my mixing and proper mixing levels and started using a template created by member jsaras (his name is Jonas, here's his template http://forum.cakewalk.com/tm.asp?m=843953). According to him, the proper levels are:

-20dB RMS, -6dB Peak RMS before mastering and
-14dB RMS,-10 dB Peak RMS after mastering.

Using Voxengo Span, I'm getting PeakRMS left -8.1 and Peak RMS right -8.4, and RMS -20.9.

Using DFX RMS Buddy, I'm getting pretty much the same thing, -21.45 average RMS.
My Master bus is set to RMS and it gives me a peak of +1.4, which RMS Buddy does as well.

Am I in the ballpark? I still have no idea what I'm doing, but Jonas' template has helped quite a bit with workflow as well as using sends, ect., and of course reading threads for hours from this forum helps as well. Any feedback would be appreciated.

Robert Anthony

Peak and RMS are two different things. At least they are to me so I can't follow you post.

I don't understand the numbers. You're peaking at -6db before mastering and -10db after mastering? Normally, the peak is higher after mastering, often as high as -0.1db (I shoot for -1db myself).

-20db RMS is OK for dynamic music such as jazz or classical. -14db RMS would be a good target for rock and pop. However, a mastering engineer might boost that up.

If you're seeing +1.4db on the master bus, you've gone too far. While track levels > 0db are acceptable during mixing (although you still want to avoid them if you can), you absolutely cannot exceed 0db on the master bus.

Bit I hope you are guessing. I sure have no idea what the numbers mean.

I try to get my RMS around -9, -10 and peaks around -.5 when I "master" my tunes.

The quote "-20dB RMS, -6dB Peak RMS before mastering and
-14dB RMS,-10 dB Peak RMS after mastering " was pasted from a post Jonas made about his template, and that is what confused me as well, the "-6db peak RMS before mastering" part. Hopefully this image is legible, but what I'm referring to as peak rms after mastering is in the lower left hand corner of the Voxengo Span.



The bottom left reads, left to right "RMS L -20.9 PRMS -8.3." Is the PRMS what Jonas was refering to as "Peak RMS?" Thanks for the help, this stuff confuses me. I'm getting the peak around 0 now, and it's hitting around -20 RMS, but Bitflipper, -15 is about right for rock?

Thanks again,
Robert Anthony

The problem is how the "peak" RMS is calculated. RMS means Root mean squared. Its an average of things. Peak is the highest peak level that you get. You can average the peaks but how its done will have an impact on what it says. Further it really should be the real peaks. The reason is this is used to have a notion of where your highest peak is and if its clipping. RMS gives a notion of the general over all loudness. Averaging the peaks is interesting data but its not all that useful. The range between the peaks and the RMS readings give you an idea of the dynamics of the song. The "RMS" Peak isn't telling you much. I guess I am used to looking at this this way and I am set in my ways.

Edit to add What does mean? Is it the peak average or average peak?

I try to get an average around -18db at the meter that shows the whole mix. with peaks around -6 and only drum hits get to go as high as -3db.

RMS is calculated using a small "window", usually around 50 ms but adjustable in some applications. With each window you can calculate the RMS for that window and RMS for all audio up to that point using previous RMS data. Peak RMS (PRMS) in SPAN is the maximum RMS found for any single window.

When RMS is near PRMS then most of your material has the same loudness and is probably very un-dynamic. However, most people adjust listening volumes such that RMS levels are at a comfortable sound level. If you had a Peak RMS of say 15 dB higher than RMS then it's possible that the listener will be blasted by very high volume wherever that happens to be in your track. IIRC, most material I've worked with has PRMS about 4-8 dB higher than RMS, but in some cases it may go outside that range. Our ears are more sensitive to Peak RMS than instantaneous peaks so while we may not hear a very loud instantaneous peak we will be able to perceive a very loud Peak RMS value.

I'd say PRMS should just be used as a guide to make sure that your mix isn't too outta whack. It probably doesn't matter too much as long as 2 < (PRMS minus RMS) < 12. If it's outside that range then I'd try to have a clear understanding why it's that way.

What I've done in the past is mixdown tracks around -3db the on the master bus with nothing in the bus, bounce down to one track, import it to a stereo master template, add compression, eq, limiting, ect and get it to -.2. I never even considered RMS until a couple of weeks ago.

So to get a handle on what everyone has said, after mastering it should be around -14 RMS (for pop/rock) and peak RMS 4 to 6 db higher, with peak on the master at or just below 0.

Hey thanks, I'll give these guidelines a shot and thanks to everyone who has commented; I've learned much from many of your previous posts when searching or reading the daily threads.

Thanks again
Robert Anthony

ORIGINAL: blueoneblue

So to get a handle on what everyone has said, after mastering it should be around -14 RMS (for pop/rock) and peak RMS 4 to 6 db higher, with peak on the master at or just below 0.

Thanks again
Robert Anthony

That won't be up to current "commercial volumes" if you care. It depends on the type of music too (don't know if you said that)

Most pop/rock/new country music is going to RMS above -10 (even -7, -8) and peak right up against 0dB

heard tracks mastered to -4 db rms lately (still sounding good) amazing what some freaks can do to audio

When I polish my mixes (I hesitate to call it "mastering") I use Elephant and the final levels in SPAN are around -11 dB RMS and -6~7 dB PRMS. Works for me.

Thanks for the replies. I guess my problem in reading threads and articles on mixing/mastering is my either not understanding the topic in general or not understanding what is being to referred to, and at what stage.

Right now I'm working on a track and master bus is peaking right around 0, maybe going over by .4 or so, with my RMS is at -21 and my peak RMS is at 12. There is nothing on the master bus, and this is mixdown stage, so I'm going to export to a single file, open it in a stereo mastering template, add compression, limit, eq, ect, and aim for around -14 RMS and -10PeakRMS, give or take a few. I'm having a problem getting the first mixdown stage to sit in the -20 RMS and -6 PRMS area.

Is it adviseable in the first mixdown stage to compress/ limit the master bus before mixdown?

Thanks for any replies. I know I'm sort of rambling, and of course every project is different in terms of content, dynamics, ect.; I'm just trying to get a handle on what I should aim for. Oh, by the way, I record mainly rock.

Thanks again,

Robert Anthony

I would not worry too much about RMS prior to mastering - just worry about getting a good mix and controlling the peak.

I try to keep -pre-master peak at -3dB or lower. This is to "leave room" for mastering. Sometimes I will stick a hard limiter at that level to make sure I don't go over, but that's only if there are a couple little peaks here and there that are close - other than that, I just back off in the mix.

RMS in WIKI

RMS and peak are almost but not entirely unrelated. RMS uses a series of values. Peak just uses one. You could have a loud peak followed by silence, as frequently happens in classical, and that could have a low RMS despite one huge peak.

Alternatively, you could have the unchanging dynamics (oxymoron there) of the Ramones and that might have a high RMS, though few big peaks. The Ramones stuff will seem louder on average. IN fact, the classical might have been much louder for about 0.5 seconds

I try not to clip my tracks when I track. When I mix, my goal is to get to -1-3 db peaks. Sometimes I might put a buss compressor on the master to tame some of the extraneous spikes. But going over 0 results in digital clipping - a really nasty sound that reminds me of going to the dentist.

ORIGINAL: MatsonMusicBox

I would not worry too much about RMS prior to mastering - just worry about getting a good mix and controlling the peak.

I try to keep -pre-master peak at -3dB or lower. This is to "leave room" for mastering. Sometimes I will stick a hard limiter at that level to make sure I don't go over, but that's only if there are a couple little peaks here and there that are close - other than that, I just back off in the mix.

Everyone is different , but I pay very little attention to PEAK levels during recording, and about 100 times more to RMS levels whilst recording.

It would take me a zillion pages of typing to explain why but basically.....

I mix at a reference level coming out of my monitors....as I mix song to song, the same volume generally hits my ears from my monitors, this reduces the effect that volume has on percieved levels....search "Fletcher Munson"...this gives me incredible "repeatability" on my mixing.

I use a system to manage levels during tracking....search "0VU =18dB" or "K20 system Bob Katz"


Basically, I track instruments leaving a boat load of "headroom" in the digial realm. I track using the "analog" part of the chain is operating at optimum levels (I dont overload the mic, I try and put the mic in the right place,I use the preamps in their optimum position"

This allows me to get a detailed and clear sound.

I track to the K20 principle, this gives me a 20db "Crest Factor" which means I can just get on with the job of tracking, and at them end of the take, check the PEAK meter to make sure I dont have any overs, which I never do , setting stuff up like this...takes the guess work out.

When I have finished a mix, I also mix at K20, My mixes have good consistency, and go to the mastering engineer with maybe 5 or 6dB of headroom, sometimes a little more, if its say a ballad, and maybe a touch less, if the song is a bit more full on. The mastering engineer loves me...he has room to work ...8).


I spent a good year , working through all this stuff, after already being a very experience "home recordist" (say 20 years at that point) when I went to make my second self released album.....I made the point of saying to myself, I want to learn why my recordings dont sound as professional as what I hear on CD....and I worked insanely hard to get as good as I could...

Now you can listen to the song in my signature, to decide for yourself If I achieved my goal, to my mind I have, and it was worth the thousands of hours, of reading, re reading, practicing, pestering, and more and more reading.....try and look past the song, if you dont like that style of music, and listen to the engineering and such.


My RMS level when mixing is at -20db....that matters zero...really, again listen to the song in my signature, and see if you think it suffers acoustically...it has been mastered, of course, and its mastered by a professional, for good reason, I sell the CD, and I want the best for my music, after working on this album day and night for a year, I have no objectivity I couldnt master myself out of a wet paper bag....8)....


Spend your time, learning how to track and mix, and getting the best out of your voice, instrument, song arrangement, room, gear...everything ....dont worry about mastering...at this point...in fact unless you are presenting more than one tune to someone, its not really mastering in the true sense....


dont mean to come over as preachy....I just sometimes wish , I could take some of the stuff I have gone through and just place it in others hearts/heads so they wouldnt have to go thru it.....


hope it helps someone...

cheers

Wiz

Excellent post Wiz.

Nice to see someone willing to put the time and effort in like you have.

Everyone is different , but I pay very little attention to PEAK levels during recording, and about 100 times more to RMS levels whilst recording.

The reverse here. I am far more concerned about peaks when recording then RMS.

I mix at a reference level coming out of my monitors....as I mix song to song, the same volume generally hits my ears from my monitors, this reduces the effect that volume has on percieved levels....search "Fletcher Munson"...this gives me incredible "repeatability" on my mixing.

What does this have to do with record levels?

Basically, I track instruments leaving a boat load of "headroom" in the digial realm. I track using the "analog" part of the chain is operating at optimum levels (I dont overload the mic, I try and put the mic in the right place,I use the preamps in their optimum position"

This seems to contradict the first statement.

I am not trying to attack you on this but recording is not the hardest thing a person will do. Over the yers I only try to get a good signal and thats about it. It ain't rocket science. You are right everyone is different.

uh ..... OK .... I'll assume that was at least mostly directed to me as you copied my post ... Not sure we disagree much ... I think ... huh ....

anyway ....

You don't want to clip - we all agree - so record 24 bit and don't freak if you don't peak on ind. tracks above -6 or -12 for that matter or even more - especially depending on the source.

I was talking about overall RMS/Peak (2 buss) not ind. tracks. It is the job of the mastering engineer to "close the gap" between RMS and peak - as the mixing engineer - we need to watch clips and give them some room ... -3dB is enough. My point is that if the MIX IS GOOD and you DON'T CLIP (tracks or overall) then the RMS will take care of itself. Use your ears, not your eyes so much.

If the material is "too dynamic" (and you don't really want it to be) that is what compressors coming in or as an insert are for - or you need to re-track and play/sing/whatever smoother.

Overall - I go back to the same point - if it sounds good, it is good.

Are you talking the "40 Years" song in the video from you page (that's all I found) - I like that song a lot BTW - and nice mix and master. I'd point you to my sig too - maybe more than one way to skin a cat? LOL

Thanks!

I guess what's important is that he has a method that he has arrived at that allows him to achieve consistency in his mixes.

I guess what's important is that he has a method that he has arrived at that allows him to achieve consistency in his mixes.

True but should there be that kind of consistency with all mixes? Just asking. I suppose its that signature sound.

ORIGINAL: John

Everyone is different , but I pay very little attention to PEAK levels during recording, and about 100 times more to RMS levels whilst recording.

The reverse here. I am far more concerned about peaks when recording then RMS.

I mix at a reference level coming out of my monitors....as I mix song to song, the same volume generally hits my ears from my monitors, this reduces the effect that volume has on percieved levels....search "Fletcher Munson"...this gives me incredible "repeatability" on my mixing.

What does this have to do with record levels?

Basically, I track instruments leaving a boat load of "headroom" in the digial realm. I track using the "analog" part of the chain is operating at optimum levels (I dont overload the mic, I try and put the mic in the right place,I use the preamps in their optimum position"

This seems to contradict the first statement.

I am not trying to attack you on this but recording is not the hardest thing a person will do. Over the yers I only try to get a good signal and thats about it. It ain't rocket science. You are right everyone is different.

Hey no probs....I wont take it as an attack....and dont read anything I say as negative...8)..we are just having a nice chat...8)...


What does this have to do with record levels?

This seems to contradict the first statement.

everything actually, you get used to working at a consistent volume, I can basically listen to whats coming out my monitors and know if I am not getting enough signal to tape so to speak.....8)...

See the thing is, you need to have a standardised set up, and each piece in the chain needs to operate at a consistent and proper operating condition...the guitar has to have good strings, the player has to be tight, the room has to be good, the mic goes in the right postion, the preamp gain is set so the preamp is operating optimally, the DA convertors input sensitivity is set appropriately to capture the output of the preamp (-10 or +4 etc etc ) and then the volume coming out of your monitors, is set to the right level...so you can judge that relationship between kick and bass guitar effectively, day to day, hour to hour...song to song....once you start working like this, things like compression ratios, release times, reverb decay times, etc all become easier to deal with.....IMHO....

hope that helps to understand what I was getting at...

cheers

Wiz

ORIGINAL: John

I guess what's important is that he has a method that he has arrived at that allows him to achieve consistency in his mixes.

True but should there be that kind of consistency with all mixes? Just asking. I suppose its that signature sound.

A valid point to be sure.

To each his own I suppose.

ORIGINAL: MatsonMusicBox

uh ..... OK .... I'll assume that was at least mostly directed to me as you copied my post ... Not sure we disagree much ... I think ... huh ....

anyway ....

You don't want to clip - we all agree - so record 24 bit and don't freak if you don't peak on ind. tracks above -6 or -12 for that matter or even more - especially depending on the source.

I was talking about overall RMS/Peak (2 buss) not ind. tracks. It is the job of the mastering engineer to "close the gap" between RMS and peak - as the mixing engineer - we need to watch clips and give them some room ... -3dB is enough. My point is that if the MIX IS GOOD and you DON'T CLIP (tracks or overall) then the RMS will take care of itself. Use your ears, not your eyes so much.

If the material is "too dynamic" (and you don't really want it to be) that is what compressors coming in or as an insert are for - or you need to re-track and play/sing/whatever smoother.

Overall - I go back to the same point - if it sounds good, it is good.

Are you talking the "40 Years" song in the video from you page (that's all I found) - I like that song a lot BTW - and nice mix and master. I'd point you to my sig too - maybe more than one way to skin a cat? LOL

Thanks!

Hey MatsonMusicBox

sorry, I didnt mean to direct it at you....its just your post I quoted...8)...take no offence..non intended...


We do see eye to eye...8)

and yep, 40 years is what I was talking about...

There are a lot of opinions on the net, and I thought If I am going to give mine, I might as well put up something people can listen to and decide if I am worth listening to in the first place...proof is in the pudding, put up or shut up kind of thing...8)...hey, and If I sell an album along the way...8)...we all gotta eat right...8)

I am gonna go listen to your song now...

and hope there was no misunderstanding.....

cheers

Wiz

ORIGINAL: Wiz

and hope there was no misunderstanding.....

cheers

Wiz

None at all -- all is well

ORIGINAL: John

I guess what's important is that he has a method that he has arrived at that allows him to achieve consistency in his mixes.

True but should there be that kind of consistency with all mixes? Just asking. I suppose its that signature sound.

Dont get me wrong every song is different, stylistically, arrangement, tempos affect compression attack and release times, decay times of reverbs, delay times, modulation settings etc...

but relationships between instruments, good dynamics control, space, depth, dynamic change...all those things are consistent....and are helped by a consistent approach to tracking and mixing...

it also helps a lot with ear fatigue, repeatable mixing, etc etc etc...seriously.

Try this, play one of your mixes, set the relationship between the kick drum and bass guitar...now turn the whole mix down 12 db, how is that kick drum sitting?, now turn it up past where you had it, really loud...how is that kick drum sitting...

Do it with delay repeats on a vocal, same thing, set the vocal delay level, across three different mix volumes coming out at your ears.......each will be different..why Fletcher Munson Curve...

This is part of the reason why that mix you thought sounded great last night, sounds like garbage the next day when you come in fresh...8)...I bet thats happened to everyone of us....8).....


Set up your monitoring environment correctly (speaker placement, monitoring level, room treatment) get your tracking under control (room treatment, mic choice, mic placement, gain staging, AD sensitivity settings) and you will be amazed at how much easier, after a time, this stuff gets....



but, as I said, its just one guy on the nets opinion, and that and 2 dollars will buy you a cup of coffee...8)...

cheers

Wiz

edited for incredibly poor spelling on my part..8)

I am with John here. I always want the best signal to tape (or whatever it is). I try to pay as much attention to that as possible. I never ever ever want digital clipping.

I usually go for about -2-3 db below when I am testing before hitting record to make sure I dont clip.

Mixing is an entirely different process.

ORIGINAL: John

Everyone is different , but I pay very little attention to PEAK levels during recording, and about 100 times more to RMS levels whilst recording.

The reverse here. I am far more concerned about peaks when recording then RMS.

I mix at a reference level coming out of my monitors....as I mix song to song, the same volume generally hits my ears from my monitors, this reduces the effect that volume has on percieved levels....search "Fletcher Munson"...this gives me incredible "repeatability" on my mixing.

What does this have to do with record levels?

Basically, I track instruments leaving a boat load of "headroom" in the digial realm. I track using the "analog" part of the chain is operating at optimum levels (I dont overload the mic, I try and put the mic in the right place,I use the preamps in their optimum position"

This seems to contradict the first statement.

I am not trying to attack you on this but recording is not the hardest thing a person will do. Over the yers I only try to get a good signal and thats about it. It ain't rocket science. You are right everyone is different.

ORIGINAL: space_cowboy

I am with John here. I always want the best signal to tape (or whatever it is). I try to pay as much attention to that as possible. I never ever ever want digital clipping.

I usually go for about -2-3 db below when I am testing before hitting record to make sure I dont clip.

Mixing is an entirely different process.

ORIGINAL: John

Everyone is different , but I pay very little attention to PEAK levels during recording, and about 100 times more to RMS levels whilst recording.

The reverse here. I am far more concerned about peaks when recording then RMS.

I mix at a reference level coming out of my monitors....as I mix song to song, the same volume generally hits my ears from my monitors, this reduces the effect that volume has on percieved levels....search "Fletcher Munson"...this gives me incredible "repeatability" on my mixing.

What does this have to do with record levels?

Basically, I track instruments leaving a boat load of "headroom" in the digial realm. I track using the "analog" part of the chain is operating at optimum levels (I dont overload the mic, I try and put the mic in the right place,I use the preamps in their optimum position"

This seems to contradict the first statement.

I am not trying to attack you on this but recording is not the hardest thing a person will do. Over the yers I only try to get a good signal and thats about it. It ain't rocket science. You are right everyone is different.

I dont disagree with you space cowboy, our difference is in the amount of headroom we leave...but the important thing, is that the preamp be operating correctly and in its "sweet spot".

with 24 bit, bit depth, its a moot point wether the peak is at -6, -12,-18...what is important is to A not clip, ever and B operate the analog part of the chain optimally...

There is no point turning up the preamp, to just get the needle higher...8)...and I am not suggesting anyone here does that...8)

cheers

Wiz

I don't think we are all that far off in how we approach this. I just don't care much about RMS levels when recording. Not that they are not important.
I do like this statement.

I dont disagree with you space cowboy, our difference is in the amount of headroom we leave...but the important thing, is that the preamp be operating correctly and in its "sweet spot".

This comes from knowing your gear.

What's important is you leave yourself enough headroom to "mix into" as you sum signal paths.

Well it can be done with good solid signals by simply lowering the faders. Its better then having to raise them.

ORIGINAL: John

Well it can be done with good solid signals by simply lowering the faders. Its better then having to raise them.

Which changes your gain staging. Might lead to a sound you like, might not. Faders should be used for mixing, not gain staging. IOW, start your mix with all faders up at zero, where their resolution is maximum. Also leaves you most "throw" for fades. This is basic stuff, not specific to DAW...

I use my trims to set every channel to about -12 dB peaks coming in, which means sometimes a boost if it's a weak signal, sometimes attenuate if it's a strong one. Check after every plugin using Free Gain to make sure the gain is still in this range, not creeping up or down. Then when I'm done every fader is at zero with track outputs at -12 and whole mix, after summing, is between -3 and -6 dB depending on how many busses summed etc.

Now I can use the faders for their intended purpose which is mixing.

Which changes your gain staging. Might lead to a sound you like, might not. Faders should be used for mixing, not gain staging. IOW, start your mix with all faders up at zero, where their resolution is maximum. Also leaves you most "throw" for fades. This is basic stuff, not specific to DAW...

Thats what I am talking about mixing when lowering the faders.

I use my trims to set every channel to about -12 dB peaks coming in, which means sometimes a boost if it's a weak signal, sometimes attenuate if it's a strong one. Check after every plugin using Free Gain to make sure the gain is still in this range, not creeping up or down. Then when I'm done every fader is at zero with track outputs at -12 and whole mix, after summing, is between -3 and -6 dB depending on how many busses summed etc.

I use the faders only. Maybe its because I use an MC.

Dont forget offset mode...8)...

once I have my "static" fader mix set up, I then make a note of the setting of each fader, go into offset mode, reduce the faders by that amount, then out of offset mode and reset all the faders to 0.

Now i do my mix automation, using the maximum resolution on the fader...

there are many ways to skin the cat...8)...not that I endorse the skinning of cats....I like cats, but alas...I digress...

8)

cheers

Wiz

Thanks for the discussion and all of the pointers. I guess I should break out my Owinski engineering book I bought about 8 months ago when I first started recording. At the time it was a bit over my head(it still might be) and decided to keep it simplle.

Thanks again
Robert Anthony

ORIGINAL: Wiz
but relationships between instruments, good dynamics control, space, depth, dynamic change...all those things are consistent....and are helped by a consistent approach to tracking and mixing...

it also helps a lot with ear fatigue, repeatable mixing, etc etc etc...seriously.

I'm with Wiz on this. Everything he's said is IMO the correct way to approach recording. Bob Katz K-System doesn't just work for mixing/mastering, it is excellent for tracking as well because it focuses more on the sound than where the meters lie.

Since digital has no "headroom" in the normal sense and since early digital recording had resolution issues (to put it mildly) the practice became to record so that your peaks came as close to 0 dBFS as possible without going over. (Price Is Right recording). But since nowadays we have really good A/D converters with even the bad ones having a dynamic range of 100 dB and really good linearity throughout that range, it's not nearly as important to get as close to 0 as possible. Instead you should calibrate the actual SPL of your speakers to an RMS reference on your meters--which is what the K-System is. And then once things are calibrated and you gain experience with how the various loudnesses sound/feel, you can set levels using only your ears and you won't clip.

Katz' K-System is perfectly fine to use for recording, except that maybe might want to go for a "K-31" system. But that's the beauty of the K-System. You can choose however much "headroom" you want in your digital system, but the SPL reference remains constant. Your ears become your level setting tools, and that is how it should be IMO. Film sound guys have done it this way for years. I don't know why the music guys don't.

Katz' K-System is perfectly fine to use for recording, except that maybe might want to go for a "K-31" system. But that's the beauty of the K-System. You can choose however much "headroom" you want in your digital system, but the SPL reference remains constant. Your ears become your level setting tools, and that is how it should be IMO. Film sound guys have done it this way for years. I don't know why the music guys don't.

One reason is music is a living breathing amorphous thing. I am not opposed to the "K system" but I don't want my stuff to be like any one else's stuff. Each song/composition is its own thing and should be given a blank slate as much as possible. It should evolve to what it can be. Doing this "by the numbers" is making it as if its a cookie cutter thing. A mass produced item that music is not well suited to. Film and video are using sound in a very different way and it is unfortunate that some of their techniques have migrated over to music recording. It may solve some problems for those that want to not put the time and hard work into creating a finished sound that gives the very best possible interpretation to a song but it is only one of many ways to work with audio. Just another point of view.

ORIGINAL: John

Katz' K-System is perfectly fine to use for recording, except that maybe might want to go for a "K-31" system. But that's the beauty of the K-System. You can choose however much "headroom" you want in your digital system, but the SPL reference remains constant. Your ears become your level setting tools, and that is how it should be IMO. Film sound guys have done it this way for years. I don't know why the music guys don't.

One reason is music is a living breathing amorphous thing. I am not opposed to the "K system" but I don't want my stuff to be like any one else's stuff.

You obviously don't understand the K-System if you think it will somehow homogenize your music.

Each song/composition is its own thing and should be given a blank slate as much as possible. It should evolve to what it can be. Doing this "by the numbers" is making it as if its a cookie cutter thing. A mass produced item that music is not well suited to. Film and video are using sound in a very different way and it is unfortunate that some of their techniques have migrated over to music recording. It may solve some problems for those that want to not put the time and hard work into creating a finished sound that gives the very best possible interpretation to a song but it is only one of many ways to work with audio. Just another point of view.

I'm dumbfounded that you could actually say that. Your point of view seems based on your ignorance of what the K-System is. Have you tried recording using a calibrated monitoring system?

My system is calibrated and has been so for years. I also know it like the back of my hand. I also have looked into the K system and saw no reason for me to change anything I do. If you think I don't know about this stuff then we are at an impasse. Sorry you had to approach this in the way you did in your answer. Clearly you like the K system I don't.

Proper gain structure isn't an artistic descision... it's fundamental engineering practice. If the signal's level at the first plugin in the fx bin is not optimal, nothing you do at the fader (post fx) is going to change that.

Proper gain structure isn't an artistic descision... it's fundamental engineering practice. If the signal's level at the first plugin in the fx bin is not optimal, nothing you do at the fader (post fx) is going to change that.

And who said its not? Or that I don't know how to get a good signal?

One thing to keep in mind here is great recordings were made long before the K system was even conceived. Or before Mr. Katz was born.

ORIGINAL: John

Proper gain structure isn't an artistic descision... it's fundamental engineering practice. If the signal's level at the first plugin in the fx bin is not optimal, nothing you do at the fader (post fx) is going to change that.

And who said its not? Or that I don't know how to get a good signal?

One thing to keep in mind here is great recordings were made long before the K system was even conceived. Or before Mr. Katz was born.

everyone play nice....8)...or I will send you to bed without desert...8)..

Everyone here is right.

The K system is cool...but it is only an arbitrary thing. Film people have been doing a similar thing for years, and when I read about the K system in Bob Katz's book, which by the way has virtually no plot, and very little character development...8)..., he talked about that....and how long time engineers, usually ended up working at a really similar actual volume coming out of the speakers...

John-- I wonder what SPL you are monitoring at , and I wonder if it is close to 83db SPL?? I would bet a nice big cold beer its around there....8)...

Everyone who is happy with the way they mix, and the mixes that come out of their room are doing it the way they should.

The K System, made my eyes roll back in my head a few times when I started reading about it....but I perservered and went through the set up, with Pink Noise and a SPL meter, and made the markings for K14 and K20 on my monitor controller....and have been using it for about 12 months...

For me, in my audio development, every now and then, you come across a simple piece of advice or teaching, that has a large impact on my mixes, this is one of them for me.

of course each to his own..and whatever works...works...

but if you have nothing better to do sometime, run an SPL meter up at your normal mix volume and let me know what it is...I would bet its around 83dB...

Cheers

Wiz

PS, I think I here Santa revving up those reindeer....8)...

everyone play nice....8)...or I will send you to bed without desert...8)..

Everyone here is right.

The K system is cool...but it is only an arbitrary thing. Film people have been doing a similar thing for years, and when I read about the K system in Bob Katz's book, which by the way has virtually no plot, and very little character development...8)..., he talked about that....and how long time engineers, usually ended up working at a really similar actual volume coming out of the speakers...

John-- I wonder what SPL you are monitoring at , and I wonder if it is close to 83db SPL?? I would bet a nice big cold beer its around there....8)...

Everyone who is happy with the way they mix, and the mixes that come out of their room are doing it the way they should.

The K System, made my eyes roll back in my head a few times when I started reading about it....but I perservered and went through the set up, with Pink Noise and a SPL meter, and made the markings for K14 and K20 on my monitor controller....and have been using it for about 12 months...

For me, in my audio development, every now and then, you come across a simple piece of advice or teaching, that has a large impact on my mixes, this is one of them for me.

of course each to his own..and whatever works...works...

but if you have nothing better to do sometime, run an SPL meter up at your normal mix volume and let me know what it is...I would bet its around 83dB...

Cheers

Wiz

PS, I think I here Santa revving up those reindeer....8)...

Very rational position.