NOT SPAM -turnmeup.org-

[masteringhouse]

It's going to be interesting to see how all of this sorts itself out. It's my feeling that standards aren't really the answer either, awareness is. I believe that this venture is more about that than hard numbers. Hopefully this debate will continue and the evolution of audio production will allow for a wider dynamic range without the repercussions of being considered "wimpy" or having to supply a label on how you should adjust your volume knob.

 

[LogicDeLuxe]

I propose a "Free Dynamics" movement with it's own tag to put on CDs; one that requires no certification, and one that supports the freedom of the client/engineer/producer to choose dynamic levels that suit the content the best, with the intent to deliver to the listener the best sounding record thay can, without bowing to the the pressue or the desire to smash their stuff ito a pancake, and without the equal pressure or desire to follow some oversight organization's impersonal and unrealistic idea of what the dynamics should be in order to get "certified".

If that's all you need, then just put a sticker on the cover which tells the total RMS of that CD. I wish they actually would do that, as it would save me a lot of time finding out if a particular CD is listenable before I buy it.

Sure, it's only a number, not telling much, but then again, if it says -14 dBFS rms sine on a rock album, I can be pretty sure that the artists/producer/mastering engineer didn't try to wreck the quality.

well they say they are targeting a level from about the late 80s to the early 90s, which I think is not only reasonable, but I shouldn't have any problem getting "certified" at that level, if I chose to. I think all in all this is a positive step

Absolutely, as the best sounding CDs of all time are mainly from that period. I usually measure something between -18 and -12 dBFS rms sine for them.

I think you misunderstood me. It won´t be a criteria of dynamic content, it should serve as standard for apparent volume.

It's a little late for that. As there are already many CD with a huge range of different loudness, introducing such a standard would be pointless.

Btw. DVD has such a standard, and also there, some producers do it differently anyways.

 

[snow lizard]

I propose a "Free Dynamics" movement with it's own tag to put on CDs; one that requires no certification, and one that supports the freedom of the client/engineer/producer to choose dynamic levels that suit the content the best, with the intent to deliver to the listener the best sounding record thay can, without bowing to the the pressue or the desire to smash their stuff ito a pancake, and without the equal pressure or desire to follow some oversight organization's impersonal and unrealistic idea of what the dynamics should be in order to get "certified".

The organization in question hasn't even finalized its criteria yet. Point number one that they're trying to work on is establishing a measurement that is precise, scientific and 100% repeatable and not a subjective or interpretive measurement.

I'm not saying I agree with their criteria, but I will reserve judgement until I know what that criteria is.


As far as being the dB police, I'm not sure that that's their goal. Yet.

I wouldn't mind seeing a system with enough of a tolerance for what good suggested levels are, within reason. Dynamics can be a good tool for supporting the artistic content of music, obviously. Maybe not dance music which has always been fairly even and heavily compressed, but that's something that I would think is "subjective" or "interpretive". That type of music was ok in the '80's as far as being consistant but not smashed to oblivion. Now take a band like Jethro Tull instead of the dance music. A lot of their records had huge dynamic swings all over the place, and it was pretty standard for the MEs to put subtle changes all across the record anyway. Start moderate, build it up where appropriate, take it down to give the listener a break and make it that much more effective when all of a sudden it SLAMS the listener into thinking "wholely sweet mother of FUCK! This sounds terrific!". It doesn't even have to be that extreme to be effective. Subtle changes that are barely even noticeable over the course of the album can actually help to keep the listener engaged.

Obviously that kind of dynamic processing is long gone at the moment. Everything's all smashed, it all comes out at the same level and it gets boring and tiresome very quickly. Now if the dB police come along and say the RMS level has to be between -15.2 and -14.7 for something to get certified, I don't think I'd be very happy with that. It still doesn't encourage good use of dynamics.

At the same time, I don't think that's what the TMU folks are saying.

If they can come up with reasonable RMS suggestions and reject things like obviously destructive artifacts of heavy compression and limiting, the whole certification process would be a heads up for listeners to be forwarned that there's nothing wrong, it just sounds good for a change.

To be clear, it's not our goal to discourage loud records; they are, of course, a valid choice for many artists. We simply want to make the choice for a more dynamic record an option for artists.

Sounds good to me so far.


sl

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

This thread has now gone circular, which means I'll be getting off soon.

All I can say is that anybody who steps up and says, "if you do this, we approve. If you do that, we don't." is devising a judgement system based upon absolutely nothing but their own opinion as to what the "right numbers" are. What that system actually is is irrelevant, because there is no calculation, no formula in the world that is appropriate.

I can't believe that nobody here understands that one simple fact.

Next thing you know the Guggenheim Museum is only going to accept paintings that use a certain numerical amount of paint on the canvas with x%red, y% blue, and z% yellow pigment overall, because any other proportions are just not right. It doesn't matter what numbers you plug in, or what formulas you use to come up with them, that's the wrong way to judge paintings. Period.

Sure, one can opt not to try and get their painting in the Guggenheim (just like one can opt not to try for TMU certification for their audio), and the Guggenheim says that's OK, they have no problem with that. But the minute you try and submit your paining to the Gug and they reject it, based solely on paint content, and not on whether it's actually a good painting or not, it will have a taint on it as "not good enough" anyway.

It'll be the same thing with TMU, should it become an accepted certification standard. Once one accepts their bar of measurement, that will automatically split all recordings into two *classes*, those with certification, and those without. Then we have a situation where those great-sounding discs with quality dynamics who miss certification on a half-dB technicality will not only be considered as "not good enough", but will be lumped together as second class recordings with those pancakes that are smashed flat. Just because they lack "certification".

This of course also means that those who choose not to even TRY for certification, which the TMU claims is OK, will also be lumped into that second class of non-certified discs. In this way, certification acquires a built-in self-importance. You can skip our certification, that's fine; but if we don't certify you, you're automatically lumped into the second class.

Homey don't play that game.

G.

 

[xkr]

...which means I'll be getting off soon.

What a shame.

 

[Freudian Slip]

All I can say is that anybody who steps up and says, "if you do this, we approve. If you do that, we don't." is devising a judgement system based upon absolutely nothing but their own opinion as to what the "right numbers" are. What that system actually is is irrelevant, because there is no calculation, no formula in the world that is appropriate.

G.

Oh I agree with ya.
It's gonna have to be about pride in ones work, not a arbitrary number.
I do feel that the fact that it spurs conversation is a good thing.
I don't see a certification program stopping anyone from doing anything either.
perhaps if mastering engineers got a little more respect in regards to the finished product they would care a little more about what they put thier name on.


F.S.

 

[FALKEN]

All I can say is that anybody who steps up and says, "if you do this, we approve. If you do that, we don't." is devising a judgement system based upon absolutely nothing but their own opinion as to what the "right numbers" are.

Exactly! It's THEIR opinion! If you don't like it, why don't you make you're OWN system??

What that system actually is is irrelevant, because there is no calculation, no formula in the world that is appropriate.

Except maybe the guidelines laid out for THEIR badge?

I can't believe that nobody here understands that one simple fact.

Next thing you know the Guggenheim Museum is only going to accept paintings that use a certain numerical amount of paint on the canvas with x%red, y% blue, and z% yellow pigment overall, because any other proportions are just not right. It doesn't matter what numbers you plug in, or what formulas you use to come up with them, that's the wrong way to judge paintings. Period.

Sure, if you're the Guggenheim! Let's say its the "Museum of colorful psychedelic paintings only". And they refuse to accept paintings that are in black and white. Whats the problem here????????

Sure, one can opt not to try and get their painting in the Guggenheim (just like one can opt not to try for TMU certification for their audio), and the Guggenheim says that's OK, they have no problem with that. But the minute you try and submit your paining to the Gug and they reject it, based solely on paint content, and not on whether it's actually a good painting or not, it will have a taint on it as "not good enough" anyway.

Will it? Here is one of the assumptions I was talking about!

It'll be the same thing with TMU, should it become an accepted certification standard. Once one accepts their bar of measurement, that will automatically split all recordings into two *classes*, those with certification, and those without. Then we have a situation where those great-sounding discs with quality dynamics who miss certification on a half-dB technicality will not only be considered as "not good enough", but will be lumped together as second class recordings with those pancakes that are smashed flat. Just because they lack "certification".

Doubt it! Pancakes are the norm!! Furthermore, if this were to actually happen, then SO BE IT!! wouldn't it be better than what we have now??

This of course also means that those who choose not to even TRY for certification, which the TMU claims is OK, will also be lumped into that second class of non-certified discs. In this way, certification acquires a built-in self-importance. You can skip our certification, that's fine; but if we don't certify you, you're automatically lumped into the second class.

Same assumption.

Homey don't play that game.

ok, homey!

I think you are lost in theoretical outcomes!! The only possible outcome from this, even if its "theoretically" wrong, is a positive change!

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Oh I agree with ya.
It's gonna have to be about pride in ones work, not a arbitrary number.

Thank you!

I do feel that the fact that it spurs conversation is a good thing.

I do agree with that, but it doesn't require an artificial and arbitrary certification to do that. They could have spurred just as much conversation by starting up the TMU tagging program without any need for certification.

I don't see a certification program stopping anyone from doing anything either.

Unless or until someone who just doesn't truely understand the voaction decides to use TMUs numbers as the goal instead of actually letting their content guide them, and unless/until the TMU numbers become a de facto standard.

These boards are filled with questions asking what numbers they should be using for anything from compression ratios to magic frequencies to digital recording levels to monitoring volumes. The answer almost alwyas is some detailed form of "it depends". The last thing this industry needs is yet another artificial set of numbers that folks think should be a recipe or a magic number instead of actually using both of their ears and both sides of their brains to make things sound as good as they can, and let the numbers just plain fall where they may.

perhaps if mastering engineers got a little more respect in regards to the finished product they would care a little more about what they put thier name on.

Honestly I don't think it's the engineers that are the problem - unless you're taling about the newer home recorders.

Virtually every mix engineer and mastering engineer I have ever talked to myself or read an interview with thinks the Volume Wars are idiotic, and they would much rather do things the right way. But almost every one of them also says that they are participating tn the Wars because that's what their clients in the form of the producers or artists are asking for.

Unfortunately, most of these engineers simply cannot afford to quit the project or turn down a job out of the altruism of protesting the Wars, and it would be unrealistic to ask them to.

Amongst the producers, from what I have seen so far, debate is already taking place, and the education is slowly starting to take hold. It's great that this will continue the debate amongst them, but couldn't that just as easily have been done without the idea of artificial certification?

Amongst the clients and the newb recorders, OTOH, the certification can easily be seen as an artificial target where things "should be", and then once again the engineers will be at their mercy. the only difference is that they will be at the mercy of an erroneous belief in a different bad idea than the one they are at the mercy of now.

If you don't like it, why don't you make you're OWN system??

Ok, you got it, babe. Watch for the Free Dynamics Initiative, coming soon. A set of tags for those of us that - to quote an earlier post - support the freedom of the client/engineer/producer to choose dynamic volume levels that they feel suit the content the best, with the intent to deliver to the listener the best sounding recording thay can, without bowing to the the competitive pressue or the desire to smash their stuff ito a pancake, and without the equal pressure or desire to follow someone else's personal idea of what the volume dynamics should be in order to get "certified".

The wording will be improved, but most will get the idea.

G.

 

[danny.guitar]

My personal opinion is this whole idea is pretty stupid. Trying to set a standard for something that standards don't apply well to is, well, stupid. There's so many different genres of music and so many different styles it's impossible to come up with a single number for all of them.

I think if you want to make a difference, maybe produce music with rich dynamics, a great sound stage and clarity, and let the people hear those compared to their over-fatiguing dynamicless crap that they're used to, and maybe (that is, if they even care) they will be persuaded to buy better sounding music out there. But really, there isn't a whole lot of commercial music out there for them to compare it to.

Because everyone is trying to produce according to the standards (which are currently the volume wars). Creating a different standard will just wreck the music in a different way.

That's just my opinion though.

 

[Freudian Slip]

Virtually every mix engineer and mastering engineer I have ever talked to myself or read an interview with thinks the Volume Wars are idiotic, and they would much rather do things the right way. But almost every one of them also says that they are participating tn the Wars because that's what their clients in the form of the producers or artists are asking for.

Unfortunately, most of these engineers simply cannot afford to quit the project or turn down a job out of the altruism of protesting the Wars, and it would be unrealistic to ask them to.

G.

Ya, I can see that. But hopefully they have the backbone to at least voice thier opinions in a tactfull way. I understand, ya got to eat.

I'd love to hear some albums mastered the way that the engineer would like to VS the way the label, producer, band wants them done.

F.S.

 

[LogicDeLuxe]

Unfortunately, most of these engineers simply cannot afford to quit the project or turn down a job out of the altruism of protesting the Wars, and it would be unrealistic to ask them to.

Then it's about time that mastering engineers found a union and demand reasonable dynamics. If the producers and artists don't comply, all mastering engineers shall go on strike.

Eventhough, we need in deed some numbers to judge such things (for the sake of an industry-wide collective agreement) which we all agreed is not the best way, it is still better than letting demise the entire musical industry by their own idiocy. (Not that I really would miss them, but imagine all the trouble like suing random people, which certainly would go on for ages.)
Apparently they have no brain, thus someone else has to think for them. Like us.

There's so many different genres of music and so many different styles it's impossible to come up with a single number for all of them.

The solution could be different numbers for different genres. And the certification logo must mention in which genre it was certified (which would be the decision of the artist or producer), of course.

 

[masteringhouse]

Ya, I can see that. But hopefully they have the backbone to at least voice thier opinions in a tactfull way. I understand, ya got to eat.
F.S.

I think that most do, but ultimately it's the client's CD not mine. It has nothing to do with eating but about helping the client acheive his goal.

BTW the same applies to frequency adjustments, I demonstrate my take, then the client approves or not.

 

[snow lizard]

Interesting link:

http://www.petitiononline.com/RHCPWBCD/petition.html



sl

 

[FALKEN]

Ok, you got it, babe. Watch for the Free Dynamics Initiative, coming soon. A set of tags for those of us that - to quote an earlier post - support the freedom of the client/engineer/producer to choose dynamic volume levels that they feel suit the content the best, with the intent to deliver to the listener the best sounding recording thay can, without bowing to the the competitive pressue or the desire to smash their stuff ito a pancake, and without the equal pressure or desire to follow someone else's personal idea of what the volume dynamics should be in order to get "certified".

Improved Wording: "I do what I want"

whats the point of this???

I still don't see how "the equal pressure or desire to follow someone else's personal idea of what the volume dynamics should be in order to get "certified"." is a bad thing. I still argue it would be an improvement.

 

[FALKEN]

Man you're like an audio terrorist. First attacking bob katz and now this. I just don't understand. Please don't dilute what these people are trying to do with your own BS version. Such a bad apple.

 

[Freudian Slip]

I think that most do, but ultimately it's the client's CD not mine. It has nothing to do with eating but about helping the client acheive his goal.

BTW the same applies to frequency adjustments, I demonstrate my take, then the client approves or not.

Point taken.

F.S.

 

[TexRoadkill]

I can't believe that nobody here understands that one simple fact.

We all understand that fact. We just don't get our panties in a bunch over it. Simply stating a minimum level of dynamics to be voluntarily certified isn't some kind of draconian mandate.

 

[danny.guitar]

The solution could be different numbers for different genres. And the certification logo must mention in which genre it was certified (which would be the decision of the artist or producer), of course.

There's so much variety in each genre also that it's impossible. Maybe it would work for mainstream music, but still. I think even while the volume wars and whatever this thing is, are opposites, they are equally bad and equally pointless.

I think a much better solution would be just to produce better music and stop trying to compare with commercial CDs. I mean, you see people all the time on here asking how to get their songs as loud as commercial CDs.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

still don't see how "the equal pressure or desire to follow someone else's personal idea of what the volume dynamics should be in order to get "certified"." is a bad thing.

Opinion noted.

G.