If you've known this issue, treat this post as reminder.
But if not it's worth mentioning:
www.PleasurizeMusic.com
But if not it's worth mentioning:
www.PleasurizeMusic.com
Stop The Loudness War
- Thread starter Pykon
- Start date
SouthSIDE Glen
independentrecording.net
And for every time someone brings up the PleasureizeMusic site, I'll reply that the answer is NOT to assign numerical values to recordings. It only reinforces the false idea that proper mix levels can be determined by arbitrary numeric values instead of having a proper ear; not to mention that meter of theirs will be used mostly by those wishing to push their mix to as low of a "DR value" as possible, not those who prefer normal dynamics.
Oh, and speaking of "DR value", it's rather misleading to the newb to measure crest factor and then give that the name "DR", which refers to dynamic range, because crest factor and dynamic range are NOT the same thing. They explain this in their manual, but very few newbs make it that far.
Down with Loudness wars, yes, but PleasureizeMusic's initiatives are not the right answer, IMHO.
G.
Seafroggys
Well-known member
I use it for curiosity factor, mainly.
noisewreck
New member
The only way to resolve this matter is for the White House to create the LWCD (Loudness War Containment Department) and put Bob Katz as the head of that department. His official title should be the Loudness War Czar 
SouthSIDE Glen
independentrecording.net
Bob Katz is waaaay too into numbers.The only way to resolve this matter is for the White House to create the LWCD (Loudness War Containment Department) and put Bob Katz as the head of that department. His official title should be the Loudness War Czar
What we need is LESS numbers and more emphasis on ears. The biggest source of the problem is that most of the people in this industry - on both sides of the speakers - can't hear the difference between a triangle and a jumbo jet...unless it's electric guitar, in which case they spend 10 years working on a "tone" that they think sounds good live but sounds like crap in a recorded mix.
G.
MasteringMills
New member
i love the loudness war
by comparison
by comparison
Last edited:
LogicDeLuxe
www.abmischung.de
It's not exactly crest factors, since it uses the top 20 % over 3-seconds-pieces for calculation only, the most critical part of a recording. Thus it focuses on micro dynamics rather than the overall dynamic which entirely remains to the artist to mix the way he likes. I think, it's a good compromise. And like they say, such a standard works well for years in the movie industry.
Of course, the ear is an important piece of equipment in a decent production. Those numbers should be seen as guidelines only, not as some absolute number, and they are meant mainly for the consumer. Within the same style of music, those number can be helpful to decide what album to buy, indeed. It's kept simple, so that the laymen can understand it with ease. Hopefully the inlay will be equally simple. And hopefully, it will focus on the issue and not over evaluating this DR number. Such a labeling system sure is better than ignoring the issue entirely.
The best thing of theirs is that they actually have something which can be used while TurnMeUp didn't came up with anything for years.
As for a mastering job, it surely won't hurt to tell the customer the DR number. If he actually puts it on the album's cover is his decision. If he don't, the magazines do. I think, we shouldn't underestimate the power of magazines, after all, it's a common reading for the consumer who wishes to be informed about his potential purchases. There are already several magazine publishers in the list, and as you can see in the link sections, many have already written about this organization.
I'm optimistic that this can work out quite well.
Of course, the ear is an important piece of equipment in a decent production. Those numbers should be seen as guidelines only, not as some absolute number, and they are meant mainly for the consumer. Within the same style of music, those number can be helpful to decide what album to buy, indeed. It's kept simple, so that the laymen can understand it with ease. Hopefully the inlay will be equally simple. And hopefully, it will focus on the issue and not over evaluating this DR number. Such a labeling system sure is better than ignoring the issue entirely.
The best thing of theirs is that they actually have something which can be used while TurnMeUp didn't came up with anything for years.
As for a mastering job, it surely won't hurt to tell the customer the DR number. If he actually puts it on the album's cover is his decision. If he don't, the magazines do. I think, we shouldn't underestimate the power of magazines, after all, it's a common reading for the consumer who wishes to be informed about his potential purchases. There are already several magazine publishers in the list, and as you can see in the link sections, many have already written about this organization.
I'm optimistic that this can work out quite well.
SouthSIDE Glen
independentrecording.net
Correct me if I'm wrong, perhaps I misunderstood; but I thought that calculation was the calculation they used to determine RMS. If so, then the DR number is indeed a measure of crest factor. One thing is fur sure, it is NOT a measure of dynamic range, as the "DR" designation implies to those that don't bother reading 17 pages into the PDF manual.
Oh, don't get me started on that topic!
The movie industry has just the opposite problem; their soundtracks have gotten TOO dynamic. When I have to strap a compressor between my DVD player and my television just so I can hear both the car chases and the in-room dialog without having to constantly twiddle with the volume control, something's wrong. But that's another topic...
But guidelines for what? They tell the consumer absolutely nothing of any real value except in the extreme cases. If you have a recording of the 1812 Overture with a DR of 4, you know something's wrong. But if I'm buying a rock CD with a DR of 12, there's no way of knowing whether it's been pushed up from an RMS of 17 just a little too far or whether it's a legitimite 12 because the program material has an average density of a mahogany tabletop.
And as far as the behind the glass situation, there should be (IMHO) no reference or guideline outside one's ear. Whatever number it comes out to is incidental and academic; either you have tweaked your mix (or master) to the best resulting sound or you haven't. Whether that winds up being a DR of 17 or 14 or 11 or 7 is irrelevant at that point.
All you need to do is look at a quiet ballad and a rocking anthem from the same "style" of music - often even within the same album - to see just how wrong that statement can be. There are blues and country and ska and a dozen other "styles" or genres of music in which the sonic density from one song to the next can and do vary widely.
Which brings up another point; how can a number assigned to an entire album have any real meaning unless every song on that album of is the same average density, give or take a dB or two? Answer; it can't.
Nobody said anything about ignoring it. If you want to advertise that you are not participating in the volume wars, then I'm all for a "free volume initiative" label that states or stands for the product being produced with quality of sound in mind over quantity of loudness, but any numbering system is not only technically useless, but misleading in all but the extreme examples.
Well, I hope you're optimism is well placed, to be honest. But I see the DR numbering system as little more than a continuation of the current attempts at oversimplification of a complicated matter, the desire to find a simple number or preset or recipe or concept or whatever that can substitute for having an ear and for understanding the complexity of the real world. It's the subprime mortgage of the audio industry that deludes people into thinking they can produce a quality product without having to actually do anything other than match a number.
Those that do have the ear and the technique and appreciate proper dynamics (not to high, not too low) will have no more use for the number than they currently do for RMS values. They will simply mix or master to what works best for the program material. instead. The ones who will glom on to the DR number will be the ones who believe in the volume wars. You can hear it now; "Shit, that last [insert popular band name here] album hit a DR of 5. We had better make ours just as loud or else we can't compete."
Free volume labeling, yes. Numeric standards, no.
G.
SSG:
I'll tell you what -- that crap the movie industry has been doing with the horribly quiet dialog and the unbelievably loud explosions, car chases, and whatnot has drove me up a wall for years. Believe it or not... I think some DVD players actually come with compressors built into their software. Yes, something is wrong there.
SORRY ABOUT THAT HIJACK!
Anyways.. on topic... I think its stupid to assign a value to how loud something is. Mix it to sound good, master it to sweeten it up, but don't smash the hell out of it. Tool's 10,000 days did a great job of this IMO. The album sounds great but still maintains a great amount of dynamics. Sonically pleasing
I'll tell you what -- that crap the movie industry has been doing with the horribly quiet dialog and the unbelievably loud explosions, car chases, and whatnot has drove me up a wall for years. Believe it or not... I think some DVD players actually come with compressors built into their software. Yes, something is wrong there.
SORRY ABOUT THAT HIJACK!
Anyways.. on topic... I think its stupid to assign a value to how loud something is. Mix it to sound good, master it to sweeten it up, but don't smash the hell out of it. Tool's 10,000 days did a great job of this IMO. The album sounds great but still maintains a great amount of dynamics. Sonically pleasing
SouthSIDE Glen
independentrecording.net
Thanks for the misery company re video soundtracks, jndeitz. I know we're not the only ones who think that emperor is naked.
Here's an idea: Let's make everyone wear a number on their sleeve between 1 and 10 rating them as a person (I know, I'm probably a 2 or 3...beat y'all to it!
). It's argued as fair because it's based upon some complicated scientific formula, and it will make it very simple for strangers to tell if another stranger is worth saying hello to or not.
Putting numbers on CDs is just as ridiculous.
G.
Here's an idea: Let's make everyone wear a number on their sleeve between 1 and 10 rating them as a person (I know, I'm probably a 2 or 3...beat y'all to it!
). It's argued as fair because it's based upon some complicated scientific formula, and it will make it very simple for strangers to tell if another stranger is worth saying hello to or not.Putting numbers on CDs is just as ridiculous.
G.
noisewreck
New member
Hmmmm... Freudian slip?jndietz said:...sounds great but still maintains a great amount of dynamics. Sonically pleasing
LogicDeLuxe
www.abmischung.de
You're overseeing one detail here. Every one on the mastering list agreed to have an overall volume to no more than DR14 in phase 2. Thus less dynamic masters will decrease the DR value, but not the loudness, as you must increase the peak headroom as well. (Just like there are less dynamic movies and TV shows which peak several dB below 0).
And what "too dynamic" concerns, DVD players are supposed to have a built in compressor which can be used if desired. It's part of Dolby's specs, I think. Movies are made for the theaters, and I'm glad their mixes are preserved just like that in most cases on DVD. I'd rather mess with it myself, if I wish to. I wouldn't like some "remastered for noisy environment and cheap built-in speakers" movie tracks as it is frequently done in television broadcasts.
If you want a comparison on DVD, take the "8mile" RC1, there is the usual DD 5.1 track (which also works just fine as a Pro Logic downmix), and another 2.0 track which has a phase rotator applied, heavy compression and limiting, just like some tv stations would do.
Well well...
To add some pepper I can tell you that car audio systems are equipped with compressors and their producers (like Ford in Mondeo/Galaxy etc.) are proud it makes their systems ones of a high quality.
I guess one out of 100 listeners understands basics of compression, or at least knows the difference between file compression and audio compression. Tons of people switch the processor on because it sounds better and louder...
Forcing users not to push the COMP button on their "premium" car audio systems is like to discourage children from eating sweats. Should be audio system producer's case, but loudness seems to be like a drug.
PS. You said Bob Katz is a number-maniac... but he writes great books – stop reading before he axpands on monitors and you won't go wrong too far
SouthSIDE Glen
independentrecording.net
I'm sorry, but that is just plain insane. No matter how you slice it, mixing/mastering by number is just plain misguided at best, and is the tail wagging the dog at worst. It also follows the misguided notion that RMS equals perceived volume (it doesn't).
Mixing/mastering by number will only allow those that have no ears be audio engineers. How does that possibly increase overall sound quality in this business?
I took an informal poll of people I knew that saw Benjamin Button in the theaters (including myself). I took this poll because the soundtrack had pissed me off, and I wanted to find out if it was just me. The people I polled (friends, famil, passing acquaintances) had seen the movie in different theaters, were a mix of both sexes, and spanned an age range from 16 to 49 yrs old. Approximately half the people I surveyed could not hear a word of Kate Blanchet's old woman scenes dialogue, and most of the other half admit to having had to work at some of it. That half was not limited to any one theater, sex or age group, but was spread evenly amongst those polled. I saw it in an "Ultrascreen" theater specifically designed for, and which takes pride in having the best of screens and sound systems (and they charge extra for it), and the monologues were way too low in volume to be audible by more than half the audience. This wasn't the fault of the theater, it was the fact that the soundtrack has a dynamic range greater than what's comfortable to the human ear.
It's not limited to Benjy Button at all - that's was just the most recent egregious example in a long, long line of movies with more dynamic range in the dialog and Foley than possibly ever necessary.
It's the same thing with home entertainment systems; the dynamic range on the soundtrack is simply too large. If they are putting compression circuits into the DVD players, they sure aren't any help. And I have never seen a DVD player that provides any user control over the compression - not even an On/Off button, let alone a gain reduction or threshold control. Yet that's exactly what these systems need if when watching a movie one would rather use their hands for eating popcorn than playing fader jockey on the remote control at every scene change.
But back to audio only...
DR14 is more compressed than many mixes want to be, by a good 2-3 dB on pop/rock and 3-5 dB on classical. The day that someone tries forcing me to mix my content at some arbitrary numeric level is the day I put a label on my jewel case saying that I tell those folks to kiss my ass.
G.
Last edited:
Seafroggys
Well-known member
Yeah I watched Dark Knight at home with my dad recently, the dynamics were just ridiculous, and that was just stereo channels, no 5.1.
From what friends have told me, the Blu-Ray sound mixes are much better than DVD mixes. Generally DVD mixes are fairly substandard, probably for the reasons mentioned in this thread, but it seems they have been amended for Blu-Ray releases. I don't have firsthand experience, so someone correct me if I'm wrong.
From what friends have told me, the Blu-Ray sound mixes are much better than DVD mixes. Generally DVD mixes are fairly substandard, probably for the reasons mentioned in this thread, but it seems they have been amended for Blu-Ray releases. I don't have firsthand experience, so someone correct me if I'm wrong.
Hmmmmmmmmm
How many of you are aware of the limitations of domestic audio amplifiers?
Most cheap amplification circuits have a sweet spot where minimum distortion of the incoming signal is achieved. Reduced RMS levels actually sound better because they are sitting within the designed range of the amplifier.
(This is a property of all amplification circuits and common knowledge amongst those who tweak preamps during the recording phase. Not for maximum level but for best tone.)
If you want to do your head in and learn more then this is a good article.
http://electronicdesign.com/Article/ArticleID/7207/7207.html
How many of you are aware of the limitations of domestic audio amplifiers?
Most cheap amplification circuits have a sweet spot where minimum distortion of the incoming signal is achieved. Reduced RMS levels actually sound better because they are sitting within the designed range of the amplifier.
(This is a property of all amplification circuits and common knowledge amongst those who tweak preamps during the recording phase. Not for maximum level but for best tone.)
If you want to do your head in and learn more then this is a good article.
http://electronicdesign.com/Article/ArticleID/7207/7207.html
SSG - I have to disagree with you about having no reference other than ones ears. A reference level, and reference recordings, are incredibly important. One reason, ears fatigue over time resulting in being unable to make solid decisions in mixing or mastering. If there is a balance issue in mixing you can refer back to something familiar to gain an idea of how your perception is working.
Also, working with a calibrated playback system in mixing and mastering can help you understand more about the perceived loudness of program material. For mastering, I personally use, derived from number nut Bob Katz's K-system, a reference level of -12dBFS = 84dBSPL. I also shoot for average levels of -12dBFS and peek levels of -1dbFS.
Now that being said, this framework, within which I work, does nothing to determine, or give you any information at all about loudness. Loudness is completely subjective. However, comparing one song to the next, it can help confirm that one track is indeed louder than another or if it is just perceived as louder, and give you the information you need to make an adjustment. Unfortunately, our knobs have numbers on them.
Of course the final judge must always be the ear. Still, you must be aware that your ear may not always be the best judge, or that they may in fact be flat out lieing to you. Using reference levels and reference material can help you figure that out.
It makes no sense to neglect using a tool if it is indeed the right tool for the job, especially if it is out of principal.
And before i get flamed for not knowing what the hell is going on. The DR value thing is really dumb, but a decent attempt, at least they are trying. What we really need is responsible engineers and producers. But, audio engineering is a service industry, and if those who write the checks keep saying louder, what are you going to? Starve out of principal about a CD. I don't think so.
How about engineers who are willing to make an attempt to educate those who write the checks. Or maybe changing from a service industry to a standards industry. What standards? Maybe Bob's K-System of monitoring would solve alot. It works for me, very well. My mastering clients have been exceptionally satisfied.
have fun with this.
Also, working with a calibrated playback system in mixing and mastering can help you understand more about the perceived loudness of program material. For mastering, I personally use, derived from number nut Bob Katz's K-system, a reference level of -12dBFS = 84dBSPL. I also shoot for average levels of -12dBFS and peek levels of -1dbFS.
Now that being said, this framework, within which I work, does nothing to determine, or give you any information at all about loudness. Loudness is completely subjective. However, comparing one song to the next, it can help confirm that one track is indeed louder than another or if it is just perceived as louder, and give you the information you need to make an adjustment. Unfortunately, our knobs have numbers on them.
Of course the final judge must always be the ear. Still, you must be aware that your ear may not always be the best judge, or that they may in fact be flat out lieing to you. Using reference levels and reference material can help you figure that out.
It makes no sense to neglect using a tool if it is indeed the right tool for the job, especially if it is out of principal.
And before i get flamed for not knowing what the hell is going on. The DR value thing is really dumb, but a decent attempt, at least they are trying. What we really need is responsible engineers and producers. But, audio engineering is a service industry, and if those who write the checks keep saying louder, what are you going to? Starve out of principal about a CD. I don't think so.
How about engineers who are willing to make an attempt to educate those who write the checks. Or maybe changing from a service industry to a standards industry. What standards? Maybe Bob's K-System of monitoring would solve alot. It works for me, very well. My mastering clients have been exceptionally satisfied.
have fun with this.
SouthSIDE Glen
independentrecording.net
Whoa, slow down there a bit, dean. I was specifically talking about reference in regard to proper loudness and dynamic content level for a given mix. Of course the ears can use help in many other areas (we can't always hear clipping until it's gone too far, we can't always judge best gain staging purely by ear alone, etc. - this is why we have meters to help us out.) But when it comes to determining whether a mix has been pushed "too far" or (on the other end) whether it's quieter than it needs to be, there is no numeric measure that can tell us that based upon factors as simple as crest factor measurements, regardless of how refined the formula used to compute the RMS.
Why? I'm not being a smart ass, that is an honest question. Why do you feel that -12dBFS RMS is a target to shoot for? Maybe you and I are dealing with different music types and qualities too often - everybody here knows I tend to work with non metallic mixes and that they tend to be tracked in less-than-ideal conditions; Pantera in a big studio will go to -12 pretty well probably , as we all know from the "Supernatural" album, Santana won't - most of the stuff I have worked with in the past would sound a whole lot worse at -12dBFS RMS than they did at the -15 or -16 that I *pushed* them to after coming out of the mix at -18 to -20.
This especially becomes truer as A/D converters are trending to calibrate lower and lower on the FS scale (assuming the engineer is actually paying attention to gain structure). Maybe our friends in Europe where PleasureizeMusic is located are still working off of the 0VU = -14dBFS European standard, I don't know. But more and more gear is coming out each season that is calibrated not just 0VU=-18dBFS, but -20dBS and even -22dBFS. The manufacturers seem to be taking more advantage of the available digital range as the quality of common converters improves. This means that *IF* one actually follows decent gain structure all the way through their recording and mixing chain - a rarity in home recording, I admit, but it sure shouldn't be among the pros who are fighting against the Volume Wars - that pushing their mixes in the final stages to a standard arbitrary level means pushing them even harder.
And those numbers do not directly relate to perceived volume. The whole idea of comparing one song to the next is a major component of what true mastering is indeed all about. If all of the songs are roughly the same sonic density , then they will wind up mastering out to about the same RMS. But when you have songs that swing from quiet ballad to balls-to-the-walls anthem, getting them all to the same perceived loudness does not mean getting them to the same RMS level, you gotta do it by ear, because the numbers will lie to you. More accurately, you're interpreting the numbers wrongly. RMS does not mean perceived loudness.
I don't disagree with that. It's the engineer's job to have the self-awareness to know when they need to break or at least when to test themselves. And testing one's self against a known mix is not a bad idea. But relying on number to tell you howto do it is an awful idea.
and It's my (obviously strong and emotional) opinion that mixing/mastering by RMS is not the right tool for the job at all.
Their intentions are in the right place, but the numbering scheme is an over-reaction.
I see it as not all that different than what happened in Washington last week when the House tried to put an illegal and unconstitutional 90% tax on those financial bonuses. Sure those bonuses were as maddening and as egregious as the Volume Wars, but the kneejerk reaction by the House with that tax attempt was the wrong solution, and one that would lead to a whole bunch of other problems in the future. It was an overreaction in the heat of the moment. And trying to force engineers to make material that matches some arbitrary and highly-flawed measurement is just forcing a tax on the rest of us that will do little but cripple the future of recording quality. It is an attempt to fix one problem by inserting another one.
Amen to the first sentence there, but I don't buy into the whole "we have to stay quiet or we'll loose business" mentality that permeates these parts. You hit on a big part of the answer here:
I'm probably going to take shit for this; so be it. But there was a time when the engineer was actually respected as the engineer and not just some fader monkey who's job anyone can do. It's not like that anymore. There are many reasons for this, many of them because of the marketing strategies of the clowns who sell the gear, much of it because of the "entitlement" ethic of the Internet, where everything is supposed to be free and easy and accessible.
But I think the engineers have to share some of the blame because they are enabling this kind of misinformation to go on by keeping their traps shut and just playing yes man stooge to every Joe Client to come knocking on the door with dreams of American Idolity. I got news for ya, Joe Client isn't going to have any respect for a yes man stooge. He IS going to have some respect for someone who actually talk like an engineer and who demonstrates that they actually know what they are talking about.
That doesn't mean that we we play hardball with the client and chase them away. That means that we act like PROFESSIONALS and use our people skills and client service skills to opine and educate in a helpful way without turning them off and chasing them away on one hand, and without just being a sniveling yes man on the other. But no, most of us would rather just take the easy way and say nothing when it counts and bitch about it behind their backs here instead.
It's possible to support the cause and fight for it without having to offend anybody and without having to hide behind numbers that are trying to do as much to constrict us as the Loudness Wars are.
Here's an example that someone made a while back that's not real (it's a fake URL), but if everybody started sticking something like this on their websites and their jewel cases and it linked to a website articulating the idea of pushing for good sound instead of arbitrary loudness levels - high or low - that I see that being just as effective as what TMU and DR are trying to do without straightjacketing the numbers.
G.
Attachments
SSG - we do agree on A LOT of points if not just about all of them.
If you feel like i jumped the gun, im sorry for that. However, one thing i have learned about this message board is to not take anything for granted.
I shoot for -12dbFS when it equals 84dBSPL because it is a good starting point. Its a nice loud level that leaves plenty of headroom, preventing one from sucking the punch out. Peek activity good. If the music calls for it of course. Im not going to force anything, and will be the first one to toss out the framework and find a better way when it needs to be done. Still, the purpose is to strike a balance between the two sides of the argument.
The audio is king in my world. If you don't have a calibrated, controlled, and familier circumstance, making good decisions is hard.
When I do mastering I have a conversation with the client during which I present two options. One, we can make it compete with every other record on the shelf and explane why it sounds bad, and hopefully I have a couple of examples handy for comparison. Two, we can do what the record needs and strive for the best sounding record possible, regardless of how loud it is. In the end, I say something like, if your audience wants it louder, they have a volume knob. Option two wins normally.
So whats the point of sharing that process? Hopefully, education of the client is what happens when they finally become aware that they have options.
And on the RMS thing. Im with you Glen, its not a guide but a reference. I agree that RMS value has little to do with loudness. However, comparing the RMS values of various songs on a record can be a useful tool. That,s all I'm saying, use the tools.
If I've left anything off or any questions unanswered, I apologize. I'm in the middle of a lot of other writing at the moment, and its been a long day.
If you feel like i jumped the gun, im sorry for that. However, one thing i have learned about this message board is to not take anything for granted.
I shoot for -12dbFS when it equals 84dBSPL because it is a good starting point. Its a nice loud level that leaves plenty of headroom, preventing one from sucking the punch out. Peek activity good. If the music calls for it of course. Im not going to force anything, and will be the first one to toss out the framework and find a better way when it needs to be done. Still, the purpose is to strike a balance between the two sides of the argument.
The audio is king in my world. If you don't have a calibrated, controlled, and familier circumstance, making good decisions is hard.
When I do mastering I have a conversation with the client during which I present two options. One, we can make it compete with every other record on the shelf and explane why it sounds bad, and hopefully I have a couple of examples handy for comparison. Two, we can do what the record needs and strive for the best sounding record possible, regardless of how loud it is. In the end, I say something like, if your audience wants it louder, they have a volume knob. Option two wins normally.
So whats the point of sharing that process? Hopefully, education of the client is what happens when they finally become aware that they have options.
And on the RMS thing. Im with you Glen, its not a guide but a reference. I agree that RMS value has little to do with loudness. However, comparing the RMS values of various songs on a record can be a useful tool. That,s all I'm saying, use the tools.
If I've left anything off or any questions unanswered, I apologize. I'm in the middle of a lot of other writing at the moment, and its been a long day.
SouthSIDE Glen
independentrecording.net
We agree on this point too
.
No problem. This is a very difficult medium for complex communication, there are always going to be some misunderstandings, and I think I was just as guilty there as you were. I just didn't want to be painted with a broad stroke that there are no such things as useful references. I think were all clear on that now
.
Well, I have to be honest and say that it's usefulness for anything other than curiosity value escapes me. Occasionally when I'm done with a cut I'll take a look at the number just out of curiosity - or by accident if it happens to be on a plug that I'm using for something else. But other than that, I have never mixed - or found any need to mix - to attain a number. The RMS will be what the RMS will be; it is a symptom of the mix, not a cause of it.
I guess the bottom line from my perspective is that setting RMS standards cannot be a solution when the problem it's supposed to solve is people setting RMS standards. I honestly don't see a heck of a lot of difference between the Loudness people saying that you have to have your RMS as close to 0 as feasable and those that say the same thing, but change the number from 0 to 14 (or 12, or any number whatsoever.) It doesn't solve anything because it's the same problem; people letting the numbers dictate the mix instead of the ear and the emotion.
One can't have both; if one goes by numbers, the ear is forced to become incidental. If one goes by ear, the numbers are forced to become incidental.
G.