Anyone Using K-14 Metering?

[chrissugar]

Originally Posted by bob katz

Very pretty console, Chris! Thanks for your comments. It looks like your console is both a transfer and monitor console.

Thank you for your apreciation. Yes it is a buss summing console for DAW and also a calibrated monitor console.

Originally Posted by bob katz

I own an Avocet, which on the monitor control side is totally K-system-friendly (all you need is a calibrated attenuator marked in 1 dB steps with 0 dB calibration point).

At this moment I design and build a digital controlled mastering console, with relay attenuators like the Avocet. All the routings are with relays, and the analog signal never leaves the PCB that is directly conected to the XLRs at the back pannel, for maximum transparency. Digital control electronics at the frontpanel, isolated from the analog electronics. Also, display for each control show attenuation in dB.

Originally Posted by bob katz

I'm building a non-remote-controlled analog controller (a poor-man's Avocet) for Studio B. To implement the calibrated attenuation, I'm using TWO TKD attenuators. It will have a built-in-DAC board designed by Dave Hill and whenever you switch between digital input A and digital input B it will automatically alternate between the two TKD analog attenuators. So you will be able to see at a glance how much monitor attenuation you are applying to the master versus the source (mix). It won't be as convenient or automated as the Avocet, but it will cost me a lot less to build. I already have a Forsell monitor controller box that I will modify for that configuration.

I read about your post at PSW about the Avocet DA board and you made me very curious. That board really needs only the connectors, rack case and PSU to work properly?
Coincidence is that in the calibrated monitoring unit I also use after the attenuator a Fred Forssell jfet opamp as a buffer. Superb sound.thumbsup

Bob, I would like to ask you some thing related to some audiophile subjects, but I would prefer in PM, cause I know people are not very happy about discussing things like cables and power conditioners. Should I send you a PM?
Thank you in advance.

chrissugar

[dcollins]

Originally Posted by chrissugar

I know people are not very happy about discussing things like cables and power conditioners

Please keep it public.

Audiophile topics are some of the most entertairing!

DC

[chrissugar]

You know Dave, I read the threads at PSW for many years, but never post there, and one of the main reasons is you, and some other members with similar attitude.
I have a great respect for your work and experience, but I think you should understand that in this world there is not only rock, pop rock, and metal music. Maybe you should take in consideration that acoustic orchestral music, church organ, choir music, acoustic jazz should need a different aproach, and I'm not talking about 90% of the shitty multimike/multitrack recordings comercially available, but about clean, transparent, minimal mike recordings. I'm talking about records made by Chesky, XRCD, Reference Recordings and others. That kind of records sound how they sound because people are very carefull about all the aspects of the production, including some audiophile principles (sorry, again the anoying word).
Don't misunderstand me, I'm not a crazy audiophile, and 90% of the audiofool bulshit is driving me mad, but there are lots of things that function and have logical explanation (or they just function and there is no logical explanation). I don't even have a serious audiophile playback equipment, but I have access for years to some really serious listening gear, and some of the experiences are disturbing. So I prefer to be open minded and find the solutions/answers for a more transparent mastering/recording.

chrissugar

[chadly]

Originally Posted by jdunn

Well, here's what I did.

1) Import the -20 dbfs pink noise file into Spark XL.

2) Hit "Play".

3) Mute one speaker (Dangerous Monitor ST has Mute controls).

4) Put the SPL Meter at listening position.

5) Turn up monitor volume until it reads 83 dB.

6) Make a note of where the monitor level control is.

Seeing as how the I already know the file is -20dbfs, I saw no need to adjust the gain. I mean, 0 dB in your studio is basically wherever the D/A converter is calibrated coming out of your DAW. Mine were already calibrated to -20 dbfs.

Am I stupid? I didn't even bother looking at the DAW meters when playing the file, I just hit play and made sure all gains were at 0.

To further the simplicity thing. . . If you add 6db of trim to the file, you're now measuring at K14.

[kats]

Seeing as how the I already know the file is -20dbfs, I saw no need to adjust the gain. I mean, 0 dB in your studio is basically wherever the D/A converter is calibrated coming out of your DAW. Mine were already calibrated to -20 dbfs.

Ok here's where your throwing me for a loop. My DA is calibrated to -16dbfs. How does that make a difference if my monitors are are calibrated to 83db when running pink noise at -20dbfs from my daw?

Actually, that was a brain fart.... my DA is -16dbfs = +4dBu

[dcollins]

Originally Posted by chrissugar

You know Dave, I read the threads at PSW for many years, but never post there, and one of the main reasons is you, and some other members with similar attitude.

A desire for TRVTH and Science over mystery and hand-waving?

I'm talking about records made by Chesky, XRCD, Reference Recordings and others. That kind of records sound how they sound because people are very carefull about all the aspects of the production, including some audiophile principles (sorry, again the anoying word).

If you like the XRCD, then you are hearing some of my designs and approach. There was as little audiophile BS as possible. And none in the electronics, mind you.

Don't misunderstand me, I'm not a crazy audiophile, and 90% of the audiofool bulshit is driving me mad, but there are lots of things that function and have logical explanation (or they just function and there is no logical explanation). I don't even have a serious audiophile playback equipment, but I have access for years to some really serious listening gear, and some of the experiences are disturbing.

Isn't there always a logical explanation, even if you can't find/measure it?

It's not magic, you know

Watkinson kills again, in the latest issue of Resoultion.....

So I prefer to be open minded and find the solutions/answers for a more transparent mastering/recording.

Are you saying that I am closed-minded? Or closing others minds, with my relentless pursuit of audiophoolery?

DC

[chrissugar]

Originally Posted by dcollins

A desire for TRVTH and Science over mystery and hand-waving?

Sorry but I'm a non native english speaker (eastern european) so I don't understand this sentence.

Originally Posted by dcollins

If you like the XRCD, then you are hearing some of my designs and approach. There was as little audiophile BS as possible. And none in the electronics, mind you.

Glad to hear that you have contributed to some XRCD records. But I don't understand why every time when there is a discussion about audiophile related things you have to make fun (and sometimes make people feel stupid). Why audiophile is equivalent with BS and not with serious engineering. Just because the audiophile world is full of lunatics and lots of stupid things? Is this the reason why the "audiophile" word is so ofending?

Originally Posted by dcollins

Isn't there always a logical explanation, even if you can't find/measure it?

It's not magic, you know

Watkinson kills again, in the latest issue of Resoultion.....

It is about semantics. When I said there is no explanation I meant, that there is an explanation for everything, just we dont know it, or can't measure it at this moment.
Believe me, I don't care about hi-fi magazines, their reviews, and in general about the audiophile comunity. But that does not exclude my interest for better methods to achieve a transparent sound.

Originally Posted by dcollins

Are you saying that I am closed-minded? Or closing others minds, with my relentless pursuit of audiophoolery?

No, I don't say you are close minded, I just say that, I try to be open minded. For me the real audiophiles are great engineers like Keith Johnson, Tim de Paravicini and some other great guys who apply better engineering for better sound. And yes, I think Bob Katz is a sane audiophile and that is why I'm interested in his experience.
Do you think clean, noise free power is against good engineering? Using the best possible components, cables and solutions are against good engineering? Using an isolation platform under a turntable to avoid picking up vibration is against good engineering? I don't think so. When I think about the audiophile notion, I think about good engineering for transparent sound and not about all the BS floating around, even if that is what dominate.

Dave, sorry if I was a bit harsh but in my opinion someone with your experience and status, should be more tolerant, and not discourage people from asking things. No one is born with this knowledge.
At least we should clarify/agree that audiophile is not equal with audiofool (even if many audiofools call themselfs audiophiles). They are two oposite concepts.

chrissugar

[dcollins]

Originally Posted by chrissugar

Sorry but I'm a non native english speaker (eastern european) so I don't understand this sentence.

It's TRUTH, like the Greeks would spell it.

Originally Posted by Quote:

Glad to hear that you have contributed to some XRCD records. But I don't understand why every time when there is a discussion about audiophile related things you have to make fun (and sometimes make people feel stupid).

Because they make these ridiculous "Star Trek Physics" claims, and prance around with hilarious self-important attitudes!

And 99% of the time I point this stuff out using humor, or try to at least......

Why audiophile is equivalent with BS and not with serious engineering. Just because the audiophile world is full of lunatics and lots of stupid things? Is this the reason why the "audiophile" word is so ofending?

Oh, don't get me wrong, there is serious engineering in audio. But when the loonies get equal credibility, doesn't that bother you? It does me.

Believe me, I don't care about hi-fi magazines, their reviews, and in general about the audiophile comunity. But that does not exclude my interest for better methods to achieve a transparent sound.

We're in total agreement.

Do you think clean, noise free power is against good engineering?

See, depending on the application, the definition of "clean" and "noise-free (which is never)" may vary widely.

It is pretty trivial to get clean DC to your audio circuit nowadays.

I don't think BK uses any unusual power conditioning, or "faith-based" cabling.

Using the best possible components, cables and solutions are against good engineering?

Again "best possible" has to be defined. Is the paper-oil cap the best for audio? The Tantalum resistor?

It's all engineering.

To please the ear is one thing, to not know why is quite another.

When I think about the audiophile notion, I think about good engineering for transparent sound and not about all the BS floating around, even if that is what dominate.

The BS has made me cynical. Are you familiar with the Tice clock? The Mpingo disc? Peter Belt?

Dave, sorry if I was a bit harsh but in my opinion someone with your experience and status, should be more tolerant, and not discourage people from asking things. No one is born with this knowledge.

I would never discourage any questioning, especially of something I've claimed. We all start somewhere.

Some of it is so bizarre, I'm surprised there aren't more rebuttals!

As far as you being harsh:

"The people that matter don't mind and the people that mind, don't matter" --JW

At least we should clarify/agree that audiophile is not equal with audiofool (even if many audiofools call themselfs audiophiles). They are two oposite concepts.

So how do YOU keep them apart? I have a hard time...........

DC

[PapillonIrl]

Can we get back on topic folks ???

This was an enlightening thread for me.





Cheers,


Nathan

[chrissugar]

Originally Posted by dcollins

Because they make these ridiculous "Star Trek Physics" claims, and prance around with hilarious self-important attitudes!

I am familiar with this kind of people. I just ignore them.

Originally Posted by dcollins

Oh, don't get me wrong, there is serious engineering in audio. But when the loonies get equal credibility, doesn't that bother you? It does me.

Sure it does.

Originally Posted by dcollins

Again "best possible" has to be defined. Is the paper-oil cap the best for audio? The Tantalum resistor?
It's all engineering.

Totally agree. Of course, I was thinking the best for the particular application,because what is optimal in one situation can be totally wrong in other.

Originally Posted by dcollins

The BS has made me cynical. Are you familiar with the Tice clock? The Mpingo disc? Peter Belt?

I can add some more, C37, the 500$ wood knob and many others. These things were the reason I lost interest in reading hi-fi magazines and ignore the audiophile comunity in the late eighties. And I was a teenager then.

Originally Posted by dcollins

So how do YOU keep them apart? I have a hard time...........

I try not to put the equal sign between the concept and it's false representants. I like football, the game, but not the football comunity and the galleries, I like motorcycles, but not really the biker comunities, I like rock music but not most of the rockers.

I'm glad to conclude that we agree on almost all (or all) the points, and maybe it is just a different way to react to the same things. Hope everything is fine.

Originally Posted by PapillonIrl

Can we get back on topic folks ???

Of course, sorry for the off topic.


chrissugar

[PapillonIrl]

Originally Posted by chrissugar

....Of course, sorry for the off topic.


chrissugar

Cheers thumbsup


( And nice post BTW, off-topic as it was )

Nathan

[PapillonIrl]

So...


Anywho...



Anyone got a recommendation for reasonably prices SPL meters in Europe ?







Cheers,


Nathan

[dcollins]

http://www.tnt-audio.com/clinica/spl-meter_e.html

[Samc]

Will someone explain how using the K-system imporoved their work. How does using a special, or genre specific system to calibrate your meters and monitors help you to record, mix or master better?

[Nordenstam]

Hello!

It's not a genre specific system, but it sure is special. It's an idea for achieving consistent media peak headroom and physical listening levels. It's a blessing and a revelation once you try! One of those "why didn't I do it before?" things. The level switch/pot/fader ahead of the amp gets a real world reference. Instead of being set at an arbitary level or tuned to the current track, the physical level in the room becomes the loudness reference point.

It also takes care of headroom in mixing. At K20 (-20dB average level), the chance of getting any digital overs is near gone. Keeping the levels at the -20dB average is easy, since it's the same SPL I always listen to anyway. If it's too loud or too soft, it'll physically be too much or too little in the room. Don't even have to watch any meters at all to make consistent results without digital overs.

Mastering varies a bit more, pushing the average level to K14, K12, K10 .. call it what you want. The effect is always the same. The ears is all it takes to gauge if it's too loud or too soft. Recently had to dig out a finished album to insert a tune that was way much louder than the rest. After pulling the digital fader down so it sounded nice in the room, the level on the track was exactly right for the rest of the album. With a non-calibrated SPL, that simply couldn't have happened.

Give it a try! Am sure you wont look back.

[Samc]

Originally Posted by Lupo

Give it a try! Am sure you wont look back.

So it's a system for inexperienced engineers? I ask this because experienced and/or professional engineers have been able to achieve exactly what you described since the dawn of this profession, without the K-System. It's called gain staging and using your ears.

Professional mastering engineers have also been doing this forever without the K-system. They get masters all the time where songs were mixed in different studios (in different parts of the world even), by different engineers, and they are able to create a cohesive sounding album with these parts.

It also does seem genre specific, because people seem to be calibrating their equipment based on the type/genre of music the're doing.

[Nordenstam]

>So it's a system for inexperienced engineers?

It's a system for everyone.

>I ask this because experienced and/or professional engineers have been able to achieve exactly what you described since the dawn of this profession, without the K-System. It's called gain staging and using your ears.

Yeah, it's about gain staging and using the ear. The difference is that the SPL in the room have a factual connection with RMS level of the music. This part of gain staging have mostly been overlooked. The SPL is usually set arbitarily by the engineer. Connecting these two makes working with audio a lot easier!

It also frees the mix engineer from worries of digital overs, if working at K20, which gives 20dB of headroom above the RMS level.

>Professional mastering engineers have also been doing this forever without the K-system.

Nope. Instead of referencing a track to the other tracks on the album, the track is simply referenced to the loudness in the room. Makes it all a lot easier.

>It also does seem genre specific, because people seem to be calibrating their equipment based on the type/genre of music the're doing.

The system is 100% genre free, it have nothing to do with the type of music.

Please, read the article, it explains it a lot better than I do. http://www.digido.com/portal/pmodule...der_page_id=59


Andreas

[Samc]

Originally Posted by Lupo

Yeah, it's about gain staging and using the ear. The difference is that the SPL in the room have a factual connection with RMS level of the music. This part of gain staging have mostly been overlooked. The SPL is usually set arbitarily by the engineer. Connecting these two makes working with audio a lot easier!

It also frees the mix engineer from worries of digital overs, if working at K20, which gives 20dB of headroom above the RMS level.

So, basically what you're saying is that engineers have been doing it wrong for all these years? Plus I didn't know pro mix engineers were overly worried about digital overs, most operate at sensible limits and just mix away, this is actually quiet easy to do. How does the K-system give headroom pray tell?

>Professional mastering engineers have also been doing this forever without the K-system.

Nope.

"Nope" what? was my statement incorrect?

Instead of referencing a track to the other tracks on the album, the track is simply referenced to the loudness in the room. Makes it all a lot easier.

Are you now saying that refrencing one track against another track on the same album is a bad thing? What does "refrenced to the loudness in the room" mean?

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but It seems that what the system does is provide visual aid to those who are not experienced enough to trust their ears.

[bob katz]

Originally Posted by Samc

So it's a system for inexperienced engineers? I ask this because experienced and/or professional engineers have been able to achieve exactly what you described since the dawn of this profession, without the K-System. It's called gain staging and using your ears.

Professional mastering engineers have also been doing this forever without the K-system. They get masters all the time where songs were mixed in different studios (in different parts of the world even), by different engineers, and they are able to create a cohesive sounding album with these parts.

It also does seem genre specific, because people seem to be calibrating their equipment based on the type/genre of music the're doing.

One of the key precepts of the K-System is the calibrated monitor. While good ears and good monitoring (without calibration, a simple "unmarked" knob) can tell you "everything you want to know", the advantage of the calibrated monitor is you can tell AT A GLANCE how loud the recording your are mastering compares with anything else out there. And you can OBJECTIVELY learn the relationship, dB by dB between the openness of a recording and its degree of compression by observing the position of the monitor control. If I put on a pop or rock CD in my room, and to make it "pleasantly loud" I find I have to attenuate the control to, say, -10 dB, I KNOW OBJECTIVELY that this recording has been moderately "squashed". So the monitor control becomes an important tool in the mastering engineer's arsenal, and also helps us to produce more consistent masters and reduce the loudness race. The calibrated monitor also lets us "think backwards" but it makes so much sense----before beginning mastering, we can preset the monitor control to the position we would like the master to end up working at, and then master with our eyes closed, knowing we will be making a record with X absolute loudness and X amount of compression. It's worth a study, when you think about it!

[Full Clip Audio]

Great system and great thread. I have a free day tomorrow and am going to set my system up this way. I cant wait to start mixing!

[Masterer]

To a degree both Lupo and Samc are right. This approach to monitoring has been used by more "disciplined" engineers for a long time. I've had an spl meter and a calibrated volume knob for a long time [I'm not the only one by a long shot]. Before I had a calibrated volume knob I used the slightly less precise grease pencil . That being said, Bob's "K-System" approach is very well thought out. Anyone adopting this kind of technique will probably improve their work a little [some may improve quite a bit].

It's the kind of thing that in the past was handed down from mentor to apprentice. Bob should get a lot of credit for sharing this with a much wider audience.

[AndreH]

I can see the advantages of Bob's system, and I'll be experimenting with it soon.

I like to adjust my monitoring level throughout the mixing process since different sounds become more prominent at higher and lower levels, and I want to make sure my mixes sound great at any level.

I was under the impression that this phenomenon is an artifact of speaker size/characteristics, plus the room interacting with the sound. If that's true, then wouldn't an "ideal" monitoring level be different for each set of speakers and room?


Respectfullly,
Andre

[bonne]

Moved to separate thread.

[Samc]

Thanks for the detailed explanation Bob, your explanations only lead me back to square one, and to this question: Isn't this basically what pro engineers of all stripes do everyday except that it's just called good engineering? In effect good gain staging coupled with the ability to interpret what they are hearing?

If you're not supposed to use the spl and level meters as visual aids, then I really don't understand its benefit, and even if you're supposed to use the meters as a visual aid, its really not giving any more info to an experienced engineer than what he would usually have using his experienced ears and good engineering techniques.

The real concern I have however is what's going to happen to the inexperienced engineer who learns to only work with the system when they have to work without the system? How will they function? How will they be able to properly gain-stage their signal chain without the K-System to help? I ask this seriously because a similar situation exist in live sound where a lot of engineers cannot set-up and balance a PA rig, or mix without a laptop running SIA Smaart pro and a test mic holding their hands. Now we have an entire generation of live engineers who can barely think, they are not able to recognise a 1K tone even if it drop-kicked them in the face. Simply because they can only react to the info that the software gives them.

With all due respect, but this exactly why I cringed when I read this statement:

And you can OBJECTIVELY learn the relationship, dB by dB between the openness of a recording and its degree of compression by observing the position of the monitor control.

In my book this kind of thing is listening territory, looking at the monitor control to see what your compressor adjustments are doing to the signal is just wrong. Engineers first need to really know and understand their tools (compressors EQ etc), they need to understand what all those little knobs and buttons do, how the sound is affected when they are adjusted. then they need to learn what to listen for, and how to interpretwhat the are hearing, and this comes from training and experience.

The K-System will not "reduce the loudness race", your clients are the ones that decide what the final level of their masters will be, and if the person with the checkbook says MORE, they will get MORE!

The calibrated monitor also lets us "think backwards" but it makes so much sense----before beginning mastering, we can preset the monitor control to the position we would like the master to end up working at, and then master with our eyes closed, knowing we will be making a record with X absolute loudness and X amount of compression. It's worth a study, when you think about it!

Again, I don't really see any new concepts here or anything that engineers haven't been doing sucessfully since......forever. The part about the amount of compression did strike me though, since I always thought that using a compressor in the first place, and the amount of compression depended on what you and the client wanted to achieve sound wise and not on a preconceived monitor-level adjustment.

[Nordenstam]

Hi Sam!

Looking at meters or flashing lights definitely doesn't help making better music. The big point of this system, at least to me, is to look less at the instruments.

>How does the K-system give headroom pray tell?

It sets the headroom. And physical level. It links the headroom parameter of the recording to the SPL level in the room. Bigger headroom equals higher level into the amp, less headroom(read: squashed) gives less level on the level knob. It's what anyone does automatically to a certain degree, but this removes the guesswork, it makes the very process of turning the knob up or down THE guage for the level of the material itself.

The beauty of the K system is to connect the crest ratio of the music and the pre-amp level know with a known SPL in the room. This makes the level of the music itself the most important gauge. Not of how the track relates to the other on the album, but to any track in general.

Say, If I know I mastered an album with the amp attenuator set at -10, all I have to do to get any track at the right level is to set the amp at the same level and adjust it til it sounds right. If the amp level had been unknown, I'd have to reference to something else.

>>>Professional mastering engineers have also been doing this forever without the K-system.
>>nope
>"Nope" what? was my statement incorrect?

The 'nope' was trying to say that this is something that comes in addition to all the usual stuff. It doesn't replace anything or competes against other ideas. As Masterer pointed out, some have been doing this for ages anyway, but I guess most haven't.

>Are you now saying that refrencing one track against another track on the same album is a bad thing?

No! Absolutely not.

Was trying to say that working with a known specific SPL makes it easy to raise or lower gain as needed to make the music have that SPL.

It only takes a short while to adjust to the reference level. Of course, to find the specific level, measurements are needed. That's the only time it is. Once the 'break in period of the ears' are done, this level will be the absolute measurement. The level will vary a tiny bit between rooms and persons, but 83dB is a very good starting point.

The example I was trying to give was that the loudness can be set by referencing the level as the ear experiences them in the room, rather than by going back and forth across an album. If the amp level knob keeps moving around arbitarily, it will always be a guess as to how the SPL relates to level in the recorded tracks.

> What does "refrenced to the loudness in the room" mean?

Don't watch VU's, just listen! =)


Andreas

PS: Bonne, Eltek/Dynabel have the ubiquitous Radioshack SPL meter. At a price, but it was definitely worth it!

[Samc]

Andreas, I get the feeling that we're saying the same thing except that you're saying we absolutely need the K-system to work properly, and I'm say we don't, because most experienced engineers can easily perform their jobs without the K-sysyem. Which is exactly what they have been doing since ever. I have nothing against using the K-System per say, but the underlying implecation that we can't work properly without it, really bothers me, simply because it's not true.

[Nordenstam]

>Andreas, I get the feeling that we're saying the same thing except that you're saying we absolutely need the K-system to work properly, and I'm say we don't,

Sorry if it came across as that! Words can be so difficult at times. That was not the intention. Of course, do as thou pleasest!

>because most experienced engineers can easily perform their jobs without the K-sysyem. Which is exactly what they have been doing since ever.

I'm not saying the SPL/crest ratio *have* to be calibrated - it just makes everything a lot smoother. To me, it also made it easier to use the ears as the ultimate judge.

If you mean that calibrating the pre-amp attenuator is a waste of time - give it a try! But I guess you're trying to say that real engineers have done this for ages without giving it a special name like 'k-system'. That's probably true.

As Chris wrote:

"It's the kind of thing that in the past was handed down from mentor to apprentice. Bob should get a lot of credit for sharing this with a much wider audience"

Guess that goes to show my young age, inexperience and lack of mentor. Calibrating the pre-amp attenuator was totally unknown to me before BK called attention to it.


Andreas

[bob katz]

Originally Posted by chrissugar

Thank you for your apreciation. Yes it is a buss summing console for DAW and also a calibrated monitor console.

SNIP


I read about your post at PSW about the Avocet DA board and you made me very curious. That board really needs only the connectors, rack case and PSU to work properly?

Well, I have a relationship with DAve, and I was able to figure out the connections by looking at how they work in the Avocet with an ohmmeter. And verify the pinouts with him. He does not officially give a "Kit". But I'm sure he would sell anyone with sufficient knowledge the board, and yes, then all you would need is a power supply and connectors.

Coincidence is that in the calibrated monitoring unit I also use after the attenuator a Fred Forssell jfet opamp as a buffer. Superb sound.thumbsup

Yes sir! Fred makes great stuff. Are you coupling out with a large coupling cap or using a DC servo? DC SERVO makes a BIG sonic difference to the low end.

Bob, I would like to ask you some thing related to some audiophile subjects, but I would prefer in PM, cause I know people are not very happy about discussing things like cables and power conditioners. Should I send you a PM?
Thank you in advance.

chrissugar

I'm not so sure I'm that comfortable discussing cables either! Power conditioners, I have very little experience with. Most of my power isolation is done with very large 220 to 110 volt isolation transformers, and I use Surge-X to take care of surges.

People can write me directly at bobkatz [@] digido.com


Best wishes,


Bob

[bob katz]

Originally Posted by Lupo

>Andreas, I get the feeling that we're saying the same thing except that you're saying we absolutely need the K-system to work properly, and I'm say we don't,

Sorry if it came across as that! Words can be so difficult at times. That was not the intention. Of course, do as thou pleasest!

>because most experienced engineers can easily perform their jobs without the K-sysyem. Which is exactly what they have been doing since ever.

Yes, absolutely. And "real engineers" have been squashing and overcompressing things too. What I have proposed is a system to help people who are so inclined to make their work better. It won't turn you into a Bruce Swedien or Eric Shilling or George Massenburg or Chuck Ainlay or Al Schmidt---all of whom have made great-sounding, open, dynamic, uncrushed mixes without the aid of the K-System.

I don't think many engineers without a 1 dB/step attenuator realize its power at revealing to them OBJECTIVELY EXACTLY how loud (absolute loudness) and how compressed their material might be going. By simply observing the position of the monitor attenuator! It is a system that I have demonstrated in seminars and opened quite a few minds about. George Massenburg saw me demonstrating in France and sees that there's something to it. I am firmly convinced that the 1 dB calibrated monitor control is a critical tool for this digital world. Having moved out of an average-calibrated analog-tape world, we desperately need a replacement, and I nominated the 1 dB/step monitor control (plus the K-Meters) as a critical critical element, especially for novice engineers.

But even I use the calibrated monitor control EVERY day. If I set the monitor gain to -8 dB, I produce a more compressed master than if I set it at -7 dB. It's that simple. For those who work to a certain SPL which your ears say is "loud", thus you can see how the monitor attenuator position has a direct relationship to this. But you do not need to have this to do good work, it is just a very good tool to help.

Guess that goes to show my young age, inexperience and lack of mentor. Calibrating the pre-amp attenuator was totally unknown to me before BK called attention to it.

Currently no one else I know is doing "mentoring" on this. All my "graduates", former assistants, and students are convinced converts, though. :-)

[bob katz]

Originally Posted by Samc

Again, I don't really see any new concepts here or anything that engineers haven't been doing sucessfully since......forever. The part about the amount of compression did strike me though, since I always thought that using a compressor in the first place, and the amount of compression depended on what you and the client wanted to achieve sound wise and not on a preconceived monitor-level adjustment.

It's BOTH, Samc. If a client tells me in advance----that he would like his master to be as "loud" as Green Day---I know EXACTLY where to preset my monitor attenuator before going to work, and without having to put Green Day back in the CD player or reference again to it. The tool saves me a lot of time. And having prepositioned the monitor attenuator to -10 (probably -12 in my room for "Green Day') I will almost automatically, in the process of seeking a specific loudness in the room, end up with Green Day "sound" and Green Day "level". Yes, there's a LOT more to this, you can't turn a mx that's not destined to be Green Day into a "Green Day" master. I"m simply referring to how the use of the monitor attenuator becomes a tool in itself.

In other words, if I have previously played Green Day on my reference monitor system and I know where the attenuator falls for this "genre" of music, then it eliminates both the guesswork AND the comparative listening process. I can preset my attenuator and get right to work!

BK